Afghanistan: UK Forces

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Royal Air Force has a sufficient margin of appropriately equipped aircraft to deploy, support and ultimately repatriate the additional United Kingdom land forces and their equipment proposed to be sent to Afghanistan.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am confident that the Royal Air Force has access to sufficient strategic airlift to meet the requirements of the proposed deployment to Afghanistan. That has been a critical consideration at all stages of the military planning process. Appropriately equipped RAF aircraft will be involved in our airlift support operations and will be supported by land and sea transportation. Charter aircraft will be used to provide additional airlift capacity, primarily for freight.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but clearly the RAF is struggling to maintain the air bridge to Iraq and Afghanistan with very antiquated aircraft. BOAC dispensed with its VC10s 26 years ago, and the Tristars and half the Hercules fleet are very old. What can the Government do to increase the number of fit-for-purpose transport aircraft which, according to a recent Answer given in the other place, is only half the fleet? Is the Minister aware of the appalling impact on operational efficiency and morale when troops are stranded because their plane has broken down?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in saying that some of our aircraft are old and therefore require significant maintenance. That presents us with a challenge. However, the availability figures, which we are achieving with our transport aircraft, show that we have a total of 73 transport aircraft in the fleet. The availability is improving, which reflects the tremendous efforts being made by the Royal Air Force in that regard. We recognise absolutely the fundamental issue that it raises for morale if there is any delay, and we work extremely hard to prevent that.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, will the Minister give us an assurance that the number of air crew available to fly the transport aircraft is adequate for the greatly increased rate of utilisation that is now required?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am happy to give an assurance to the noble and gallant Lord relating to air crew. I have myself experienced, flying into Iraq, the real skills of the air crews operating in the air transport fleet. We will ensure that we have sufficient crew to maintain that capability.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, how old is the youngest Tristar or VC10 aircraft in the fleet?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I do not know the age of the youngest aircraft, but I shall certainly be able to write to the noble Earl and provide him with the information that he has requested.

Lord Garden: My Lords, two reports over the past month—from the Public Accounts Committee and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body—show that our Armed Forces have been required to operate beyond the defence planning assumptions for at least seven years. Is the Minister aware of that problem? Is it the cause of the over-tasking of the aircraft? Will he do something about the priority given to providing airlift capacity, both rotary and fixed wing, to correct the problem?

Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the reports to which the noble Lord refers. The issues relating to the maintenance of the air bridge are related not to manning but to the aircraft, the serviceability of those aircraft and the very tight constraints that we place on ensuring that we use aircraft only when they have the appropriate defensive aid suites and so forth. So although such issues do not relate to manning, we recognise the pressure that the Armed Forces are under, given the tempo of operations, and are working very hard to ensure that the action that we are taking, particularly in recruitment, is having an effect. As I have said in previous debates, we are pleased to see the progress that is being made on this front.

Lord Luke: My Lords, I declare an interest, as my son-in-law will soon take his regiment to Iraq. Will the Minister confirm that transport aircraft flying into Afghanistan and Iraq—the chartered ones as well as those belonging to the RAF—will be equipped with effective defensive measures?

Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords, I am happy to assure the House that all aircraft flying into operations will have the appropriate defensive measures. We do not use charter aircraft going into operations in areas that we regard as operationally challenging. Aircraft that go into those areas have, in all cases, the defensive aid suites that they require.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the future strategic tanker aircraft also has a passenger-carrying capability. How long has the Minister been negotiating that contract?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Earl is right that progress of the FSTA project has taken a number of years. I am looking very closely at the project to see that we can move forward significantly this year.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, are the Government likely to consider the possibility of purchasing more C17 aircraft?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, my noble friend is right to raise this issue. We are looking at the possibility of purchasing a fifth C17 aircraft, but we have not yet made a decision.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what plans do the Government have to replace this very aged fleet?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, our plans are to replace them with new aircraft, primarily the A400M, which will be coming in in 2011, together with the future strategic tanker aircraft, to which the noble Earl referred.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the operational capacity is appropriate but that we are not up to scratch?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I assure the House that we are up to scratch. It is challenging, given the tempo of operations. I will be happy to go into further detail. In response to requests from some noble Lords for more information on Afghanistan, we have arranged a briefing for the whole House this Wednesday afternoon. It will be attended by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff. We will be able to give more detailed information on these matters then.

Iraq: Weir Group

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What discussions have taken place between representatives of the Volcker commission and authorities in the United Kingdom on the Weir Group's payments to the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, representatives of Strathclyde Police visited the independent inquiry committee at its headquarters on 8 and 9 December 2005. There they spoke to committee staff and received copies of documents relevant to the Weir Group. The Strathclyde Police, in close liaison with the Scottish Crown Office, are reviewing this documentation to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for investigation. It would not be appropriate to comment further on any specific allegations at this stage.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, now that we know that Mr Andrew Macleod—the man who made the £4.3 million illegal payment to the Saddam Hussein regime—has said in his defence,
	"I did as I was told",
	by the company, can we assume that the Strathclyde Police inquiry and wider DTI inquiries that should be taking place will interview Mr Macleod and make sure that he has not been shut up by the company, which is what is alleged, with a view to the prosecution of people higher up inside the Weir Group?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am being invited to speculate on a matter that is being investigated by the police, and any answer would be certain to prejudice that process. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I must say that that would be entirely the wrong way to go.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, there is clearly a wider issue here. The Volcker report referred to 2,400 companies that took part in breaking the Iraqi sanctions regime, of which a significant number were British. Are the Government addressing the wider issue of how we manage such sanctions regimes better in the future?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, something in the order of 2,000-plus companies have been investigated. We have made every effort to assist the independent inquiry. Indeed, the inquiry said that it was happy that we had given substantial co-operation and without reservation. That indicates the way in which we want to proceed in general.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as the wider question has been raised, could we turn to the UN's role at the other end in response to the Volcker independent inquiry? Is it not the position that the internal audit reports that were put to the Volcker inquiry showed that in the United Nations organisation itself there had been huge management failures, massive misallocation of funds and zero accountability? Has anyone been disciplined for those faults, or are the British Government taking a rather more active role than in the past in telling British taxpayers how their money, which is considerable and should be considerable, is being used and accounted for?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I fully accept the argument that we must be accountable for the use of taxpayers' money; I completely agree with that. We have been active at the United Nations in trying to ensure that the internal investigations in the United Nations administration have been thorough and continue to be thorough. However, many aspects of the United Nations' role in assisting the Iraqi people and government with their economic and political development should also be taken into account. That is no excuse for misbehaviour, but there ought to be a full and balanced picture.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, if it transpires that western governments, where evidence exists, are unprepared to bring the hundreds of firms in breach of sanctions before the courts in their respective countries, thereby showing that sanctions simply cannot work, should Ministers in the future faced with decisions about sanctions against other countries not have it in mind that sanctions simply cannot be enforced?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am loath to draw the conclusion that sanctions cannot be properly enforced. In the United Nations Security Council, we have consistently tried to ensure robust compliance in this and other cases, as detailed in the IIC report of 7 September. We have proposed a fresh package of proposals, termed "smarter sanctions", to refocus sanctions more tightly on WMD, military and dual-use goods; to end the illegal oil trade; to counter smuggling; and to improve the provision of humanitarian goods. I make the point not only because that is what we should do but because it is what we should expect everyone else to do, and that is what we should argue.

Ascension Island

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they no longer propose to grant to the inhabitants of Ascension Island rights of abode and property ownership.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the United Kingdom Government need to ensure that decisions taken on the overseas territories minimise the risks to UK taxpayers and avoid unnecessarily exposing the UK to contingent liabilities. After having weighed carefully the aspirations of those working and living on Ascension against the risk that a settled community might not be economically viable and after consulting widely, the UK Government concluded that they would face unacceptable risks if they granted right of abode and development of property rights.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the islanders are not so much concerned about the dependent territory becoming a company island—or at least being called a company island, apparently under the control of the Americans after the pattern of the Chagos islanders scandal—but are very concerned that they were led by the Government to believe that they would have right of abode and that they could invest in businesses and houses? Does he not think that the late, lamented Robin Cook will be turning in his grave at the moment and that the FO had better beware of being haunted?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am frequently alarmed at all those who might haunt me. I try to put it to the back of my mind when dealing with the practical issues.
	There is no indigenous population. There are no islanders of Ascension Island. There are people who are living and working there for the duration of their contracts. They must be treated properly, and their rights, such as they are in those circumstances, must be respected thoroughly, but I do not accept that there is any case for the United Kingdom to enter into new contingent liabilities of a substantial order.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the more Ascension develops from St Helena, the greater the risk to St Helena's fragile economy? I have two further questions for him. What is happening to the revenues from licences for fishing around Ascension, and where are they going? Are we nearer getting agreement with the Americans for civil use of Wide Awake airfield?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is true that any further development of Ascension would have an impact on St Helena, although studies have shown that some of the ideas of how Ascension might develop are very much at the margins of possibility and would require huge capital investment. The revenues from licences are subject to tax, as is other property and business on Ascension. The United States has, broadly speaking, agreed to four domestic flights using Wide Awake, counting those in and out. It is not certain that that would be commercially practicable—that is for the commercial airlines to decide—but there is agreement at that level.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, why does the Minister keep on saying that there are no indigenous people, when the islanders have told him repeatedly that some people have been living on the island for 40 years and have their families there? Does he not think that it was a pointless exercise to set up an elected council and then reject the unanimous demand that the islanders made through that council only two weeks before the so-called summit held on 30 November? Why did the Government pay £60,000 for legal advice to be given to the islanders on drafting legislation that gave them these rights only a few weeks before taking them away?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, a small number of people have been born on Ascension, but everyone who goes to work there understands that the right to be on Ascension is tied to their employment there. We are not in a position financially, without entering into commitments that I do not believe would be acceptable in the United Kingdom. We would become financially liable for the support of that community were the businesses on the island to decide to leave. We have explored the hopes that some people on Ascension have expressed, but at the end you have to decide whether those hopes are realistic and can be justified. Measuring it all carefully, we concluded that they were not.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that there is no hidden agenda in the medium or long term to kick all those people off the island and hand it over to the Americans, as happened on Diego Garcia?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I give that assurance.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Government's long-term aim to avoid the cost of a permanent settlement may be absolutely right, but has there not been a problem here of rather poor communication? Were not the island council amazed to learn—I imagine from newspapers—that there was to be no right of abode and no property rights? To the outsider how does that fit in with the fact that there are property taxes, a local income tax and an island council? A little more clarity might have helped in overcoming the doubts and difficulties about a perfectly proper long-term aim.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, that was also an element of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The island and its council may express great surprise, but in the margins of the overseas territories consultative conference in October I met Councillor Lawson Henry and made it very clear what I believed the prospects would be. I do not think that anyone could have left that meeting with a shadow of a doubt about whether I thought it was likely to be a viable set of propositions. I have reached that conclusion more formally subsequently. There is a council, and there is bound to be one because there is taxation. Taxation requires representation, as we all know. That is the purpose of that council even within its limited remit.

Railways: London and Continental

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they will ensure that any transfer of ownership of London and Continental Railways is undertaken in a transparent manner in order to provide best value for the taxpayer.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I refer my noble friend to the Written Ministerial Statement that I made on Wednesday last, 1 March.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that illuminating reply. I tabled the Question before I read the Statement, which is very welcome. Given that the Statement came alongside a sudden reclassification of the London and Continental debt or a government guarantee of some £5 billion as public sector finance, in the interests of transparency will my noble friend consider—when the Government sell the company—separating out the railways and perhaps handing them to Network Rail, Eurostar UK and the enormous land holdings that LCR owns north of King's Cross?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who, as ever, takes a keen interest in these issues. Last week's Statement made it clear that the Government's concern was that any transactions with regard to the company should be transparent and clear and that we would seek to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers because, of course, they have underwritten the substantial debt that the company has accrued in recent years.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the Minister answer a little more of the Question? There is a great deal of land around King's Cross and the Olympics site. The taxpayer would expect there to be a full and open competition among many people for any rights that were transferred. As the land is yet to be developed, there should be some mechanism by which the taxpayer will get some of the value back from this very expensive project.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is equally well informed on railway issues. The taxpayer will certainly get 50 per cent of the development of property rights which, as the noble Lord indicated, both at Stratford and King's Cross are likely to be substantial. As I indicated, any process by which the company is sold—if it is—would be open, transparent and subject to competitive bids.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that there will be a current and independent valuation of the properties? Attention has already been drawn to their great value, and I support the point about some proportion of that coming back to the public at a later date when the potential is realised.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the valuation takes place, but the noble Baroness will recognise that the first stage with regard to this railway and its achievement will be the completion of the stage into King's Cross next year, by which time the country will have the real railway asset of a high-speed link through the Channel Tunnel to King's Cross, including Stratford, where the Olympics are to be located. The property issues will need to be evaluated carefully, but the noble Baroness will recognise that it will take considerable time before property is realised in those terms, and the evaluation will take account of those developments.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure us that the motivation behind this has not been getting yet more government debt, for which the taxpayer will ultimately stand liability, off the balance sheet?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance categorically.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, there is some concern particularly that some of the bidders have been rather close to these affairs in recent times. There is also concern about the timing. If nothing really happens until the completion of King's Cross/St Pancras next year, which we all welcome, and if for some time after that the sale of the company is continuing, we will be rather close to the Olympics. Everyone has referred to Olympics land, and it is crucial that planning permissions and processes go forward for the development of the Olympics. The whole thing could hold up the Olympics. Can the Minister comment on that and give some assurances that it will not interfere with the development?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in the previous question we were asked not to be too hasty, and the noble Lord is now indicating that we must not be too tardy with regard to the development. It will be subject to market bids for the company. We do not know how many bids will be submitted, when they will be submitted or even whether any of them will prove to be acceptable. I am not in a position to give categorical assurances in those terms. I can assure the House that, with a substantial public stake in this company in the underwriting of the debt, it is the Government's intention to make sure that the taxpayers' interests are fully taken into account.

Consolidation etc. Bills

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order 52, the following Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation etc. Bills: L. Acton, V. Bledisloe, L. Campbell of Alloway, L. Christopher, V. Colville of Culross, E. Dundee, B. Fookes, L. Janner of Braunstone, B. Mallalieu, L. Phillips of Sudbury, L. Razzall, L. Rodger of Earlsferry;
	That the committee have the power to agree with the committee of the Commons in the appointment of a chairman; and
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2006

Rates (Capital Values, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 26 January be approved.—(Lord Rooker.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Forestry) Order 2006

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23 January be approved. [14th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Warner, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Royall of Blaisdon.)

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most surprised that this item should appear on the Order Paper, not because I do not believe that most of the Health Bill could be adequately dealt with in Grand Committee, but because the first part of the Bill, which involves the banning of smoking in public places, is a matter for serious consideration that ought to be on the Floor of the House. It deprives quite a large number of people of a right that they have had for a very long time. The issues involved in that part of the Bill ought to be examined in the open and very seriously indeed. I urge the Government to consider whether the first part of the Bill should be considered on the Floor of the House and then the rest of it referred to Grand Committee.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. There is little doubt that something like a quarter of the community smokes; it is a minority, but a large one. Since we heard at Second Reading that associated smoking reduces life expectancy by about four months at most, it seems to many of us that this matter should be taken on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Government will look with sympathy on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, is there any limit on the number of Bills to be committed to a Grand Committee? Is not the number increasing steadily each year? Does not that significantly reduce the extent to which one can have votes at the various stages of a Bill?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, there is no limit on the number of Bills that can be referred to a Grand Committee, but I understand that the number is the same as last year. All parts of the Bill will be given and deserve serious consideration. It is the policy of the Government that Bills are not split. We want all parts of the Bill to receive due consideration. The proposal that this Bill should be committed to a Grand Committee was discussed and agreed by the usual channels. It is a matter for the usual channels, not the Government.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Identity Cards Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND REASONS
	[The page and line references are to Bill 28 as first printed for the Lords.]
	Motion A
	1 Clause 1, page 1, line 3, at beginning insert "Subject to section (Commencement: report on costs and benefits),"
	68 Clause 45, page 39, line 12, at beginning insert "Subject to section (Commencement: report on costs and benefits),"
	69 Page 39, line 12, after "section" insert ", section (Commencement: report on costs and benefits),"
	70 After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—
	"Commencement: report on costs and benefits
	(1) No provision of this Act, except sections brought into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report in accordance with subsection (2) and that report has been approved by the House of Commons.
	(2) The report shall contain—
	(a) a detailed estimate of the revenue and capital costs arising from this Act ("the cost estimate"); and
	(b) a statement of the expected benefits of this Act.
	(3) The cost estimate shall cover costs incurred by the bodies specified in subsection (6) and shall comprise—
	(a) a statement in the format of resource accounts as defined in the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (c. 20);
	(b) a statement of cash expenditures;
	(c) a statement setting out the material assumptions that have been made in preparing the cost estimate.
	(4) The cost estimate shall include—
	(a) the actual costs incurred in the period from 26th April 2004 to the date to which the cost estimate is prepared; and
	(b) the costs that are estimated to be incurred during a period of 10 years after the date to which the estimate is prepared or such longer future period as shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
	(5) The cost estimate shall be analysed into each of the financial years ending 31st March covered by the cost estimate.
	(6) The bodies referred to in subsection (3) are—
	(a) all Government departments or agencies;
	(b) any other person who carries out functions under this Act;
	and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that "Government departments or agencies" includes any Northern Ireland department and the National Assembly for Wales.
	(7) The cost estimate shall be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General who shall prepare a report on it and shall lay the report before Parliament."
	The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 68, 69 and 70, but propose the following amendment in lieu—
	70A Page 33, line 19, at end insert the following new Clause—
	"Report to Parliament about likely costs of ID cards scheme
	(1) Before the end of the six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out his estimate of the public expenditure likely to be incurred on the ID cards scheme during the ten years beginning with the laying of the report.
	(2) Before the end of every six months beginning with the laying of a report under this section, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a further report setting out his estimate of the public expenditure likely to be incurred on the ID cards scheme during the ten years beginning with the end of those six months.
	(3) References in this section, in relation to any period of ten years, to the public expenditure likely to be incurred on the ID cards scheme are references to the expenditure likely to be incurred over that period by the Secretary of State and designated documents authorities on—
	(a) the establishment and maintenance of the Register;
	(b) the issue, modification, renewal, replacement, re-issue and surrender of ID cards;
	(c) the provision to persons by the Secretary of State of information recorded in individuals' entries in the Register.
	(4) If it appears to the Secretary of State that it would be prejudicial to securing the best value from the use of public money to publish any matter by including it in his next report under this section, he may exclude that matter from that report."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1, 68, 69 and 70 and do agree to Amendment No. 70A proposed by the Commons in lieu of those amendments.
	I should say, yet again, that we have already published the expected costs of issuing identity cards. The current best estimate of the annual average running costs of issuing identity cards and passports to British citizens is £584 million from the start of the identity cards scheme. This is the cost of issuing identity cards and passports, as well as the cost of running and compiling the national identity register and providing an identity verification service.
	The running costs of the identity cards scheme will be funded from fees charged to passport and identity card applicants or users of the identity verification service or from within existing departmental budgets. The fact that the bulk of the costs will be covered from fees means that, without these fees, there simply is no vast pot of money that could be diverted to other uses, such as more police officers or more immigration officers.
	We have published the estimated unit cost of the joint passport and identity card package, which is £93 for both documents—a passport and an identity card. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also made it clear that it will be affordable to issue a stand-alone identity card at a fee of around £30.
	The new Home Office agency to be established to issue identity cards and to incorporate the existing United Kingdom Passport Service will publish corporate and business plans as well as annual accounts. A full business case will go through extensive internal and Treasury review and challenge prior to contract sign on identity cards, and the whole identity cards programme is subject to regular Office of Government Commerce gateway reviews.
	As I made clear when we discussed Amendment No. 70 on Report, the Government do not accept that there is a need for such a complicated report of the estimated costs of the identity card scheme as set out in the proposed new clause—together with any consequential costs falling on other departments—before the Bill can come into effect. Nor do we consider that the parliamentary procedure proposed in Amendment No. 70 is appropriate, as it cuts across existing procedure for estimates of government expenditure to be approved in the other place. The Government's view is that it would be wrong for the identity cards legislation to be incapable of being commenced fully until a report on cost estimates was completed, as set out in Amendment No. 70. For this reason, the amendment was rejected by a majority of 53 in the other place.
	The Government have listened, however, to what has been said in both Houses about the need to be reassured further on costs. We accept that there is a legitimate public interest in the estimated costs of the identity card scheme and it is for that reason that the Government agreed to the amendment in lieu, Amendment No. 70A. This requires regular reports of the expected costs of the identity card scheme to be published and laid before Parliament. Indeed, unlike what is proposed in Amendment No. 70, these reports will need to be published not just once but every six months and so will provide reassurance that any changes in the estimated costs, whether the estimates increase or decrease, will be reported on at least a half-yearly basis. The reports will include the estimated costs for the 10 years from the laying of the report and so will give a clear view on the future estimated costs once the scheme is fully rolled out and will cover the expected validity period of 10 years for identity cards.
	Amendment No. 70A also recognises that we must not provide information that could undermine obtaining the best value for money when we go out to the open tender for the procurement of the different elements of the identity card scheme. The amendment means that, while procurement is in progress, any commercially confidential breakdown of costs will not be published. But, and it is an important but, the requirement to report on a six-monthly basis means that any such exclusion will be reviewed and will apply for only as long as there is genuine reason to safeguard value for money so as to protect the taxpayer and the public who will benefit from the identity card scheme.
	In summary, we are now persuaded that we should include a reference on the face of the Bill to publish regularly, indeed at six-monthly intervals, reports which would be laid before Parliament of the likely costs of the identity card scheme. The procedure included in Amendment No. 70A is, we think, sensible and balanced and would not put value for money at risk. On that basis, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1, 68, 69 and 70 and do agree to Amendment No. 70A proposed by the Commons in lieu of those amendments.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I should make it clear from the beginning that I do not oppose the Government's Motion A, and on that basis I invite my colleagues also not to oppose it. I think it right that I should put on record our views, particularly on the amendment in lieu.
	As the noble Baroness explained, Amendment No. 70A was proposed in the other place in lieu of our amendments. It was technically, as the noble Baroness explained, not a government-led amendment but was tabled by Mr Frank Dobson. It is not right today that we should return to rehearsing arguments for greater transparency and openness about the costs associated with the ID card scheme. The Government conceded that principle in another place when they supported Mr Dobson's amendment. The issue for today is whether Amendment No. 70A achieves transparency and openness in sufficient measure.
	I took the opportunity to go to another place on the occasion of its consideration of Lords amendments and I watched Mr Dobson move his amendment. I do not for one moment doubt his sincerity or his belief that he was making very significant progress towards transparency; I just think he was a little over-optimistic. I think his amendment is a little too timid—not a word I would normally dare put in the same sentence as Mr Dobson, but let me remind the House that that refers to his amendment and not to the gentleman himself.
	When the Bill left your Lordships' House, it required a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of the ID card scheme. Amendment No. 70A concentrates only on the costs of the scheme and has nothing about benefits. That is not surprising, because the amendment refers to costs incurred only by the Home Office and the designated document authorities. Our Amendment No. 70 was very clear in requiring the Government to reveal all the costs to be incurred across the whole of government. We know that if the ID card scheme is to yield the benefits that the Government have claimed—for example, in benefits, entitlements and identity fraud—costs will be incurred in other departments and agencies. Our amendment took a holistic view of the costs and the benefits of the ID card scheme. Mr Dobson's Amendment No. 70A takes a narrow view from the Home Office's perspective.
	Amendment No. 70A, as the Minister explained, has the advantage of providing regular, rolling 10-year estimates of costs on a six-monthly basis. This is a valuable feature. It talks about estimates of "public expenditure", which is not defined. I am not clear whether that is expected to be on a cash basis or a resource accounts basis. Our amendment was quite specific that both types of figure were required and that both revenue and capital costs were required. That may seem arcane, but if a PFI-type financing deal were used to pay for the ID card scheme, it is not clear that Amendment No. 70A would deliver the transparency that we all seek.
	The Minister will not be surprised that we find subsection (4) of Amendment No. 70A difficult to swallow. We have tried hard and we are managing to do it—just. The subsection allows the Secretary of State to exclude any information that he considers would be prejudicial to securing best value from the use of public money. We have disagreed with the Government on the validity of withholding procurement information from Parliament, given that they are purchasing in competitive markets. We fear that that subsection could be abused, especially as Amendment No. 70A also lacks the mandatory review by the Comptroller and Auditor General that featured in our amendment. But I have listened to and, as always, accept the assurances given by the Minister. I also accept that our C&AG has the power to examine what he likes, including whether information is properly withheld. We hope that, given the high profile of this issue, the C&AG has already pencilled in a regular look at the Home Office's six-monthly reports to Parliament.
	Lastly, and crucially, Amendment No. 70A lacks the formal approval mechanism by another place before the Act can be implemented. The question will be whether the rolling six-monthly reports are an adequate substitute for formal approval. That will keep the issue of costs in the spotlight. A formal approval mechanism remains the preference of these Benches, but we should accept the views of the other place on the matter.
	In summary, Amendment No. 70A falls short of the ideals that underpinned our Amendment No. 70, but we should recognise that we have achieved as much progress towards the principles of openness and transparency as the Government are prepared to allow. On that basis, we did not table our own Motion, and we do not oppose the Government's Motion.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I associate myself with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has said.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, it is a notable achievement by the House that we have made this much progress. As a result of our amendment being sent to the other place, there was a long and major debate there on the issue of costs, which had not happened before. A great deal of scepticism was expressed, not least from the government Benches, about the Government's cost estimates. We have drawn the attention of the other place to the flaws in the Government's presentation of costs, and that is important.
	As my noble friend said, it is a disadvantage that the Government's amendment would not stop them proceeding, even if the costs grow by a substantial amount. Unlike our amendment, there is nothing in it stating that no provision of the Act shall be brought into force until the costs have been approved. None the less, if we are to get six-monthly updates—and the costs are found to be running totally out of control, as the costs of many schemes have—that will be a real discipline on the Government.
	Mr Dobson was extremely rough on the Government's attempts to justify the Bill on the basis of costs, but the major shortcoming in his amendment was that it dealt only with the Home Office's costs. One of the most extraordinary arguments that the Government have presented at intervals is that it is only the Home Office costs that matter and that, after all, other departments will decide in due course whether the whole thing is a good idea and will undertake a cost-benefit analysis before joining the scheme. I think that at one point in a debate in the other place the Minister rather plaintively said that there did not seem to be much willingness by the other government departments to help to meet the Home Office costs.
	None the less, the Government repeatedly identify the total benefits, which arise only if the other departments come on board. It is unrealistic to say that the only costs that matter are the Home Office costs. If the Government are to get the benefits that they say they will get, it is vital that other departments come on board. Therefore, when the six-monthly reports are brought before it, Parliament will need to look very carefully at what is happening so far as concerns the other government departments.
	However, it is a notable achievement by this House to have got the other place to look at these important issues and to make the Government accept an amendment which will allow a closer examination of costs than has been permitted in almost any other major project involving IT that I can remember being undertaken by any government in the past.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is absolutely right to praise the work that this House did on the Bill in relation to costs. There was a great deal of criticism from the Front Bench that this House should spend so much time drawing attention to the possibility that the costs being estimated would greatly overrun. Of course, like other noble Lords, I am extremely pleased that on this occasion the House of Commons has taken some note of what your Lordships have said. It almost makes one believe that attending this House and speaking in it is worthwhile. That is encouraging.
	However, I am a little concerned that this issue will be only about costs and not about benefits. I am also very concerned that expenditure on the scheme is already going ahead—and going ahead apace so far as I can see. I should like to know exactly what decent mechanism will be put in operation to ensure that the costs do not go overboard and that the project can be stopped at any time when it seems that the benefits far outweigh any costs. That is essential in handling public money.
	I shall illustrate the point briefly. When I was chairman of the Finance and General Purposes Committee in the county borough of Reading, the borough treasurer said, "We must have a computer. In fact, we must have more than one computer". I said, "What benefits are we going to get from this?" "Oh", he said, "we'll save a lot of money and we shall be able to reduce a lot of staff". I said to him, "You're going to have to prove that". I added, "We will agree to this as a committee provided that you bring to us every month a full cost-benefit analysis. We want to know how much money the borough council is going to save and how many staff have been reduced". So long as I remained chairman of the Finance and General Purposes Committee, the monthly reports came forward, but unfortunately I believe that eventually they stopped.
	It is essential that there is proper control over public expenditure for particular purposes; otherwise the costs will run away, as we have seen in so many instances, including in the cases of the National Health Service and Child Support Agency computer systems. We can see exactly how they get out of hand and no one can stop them. I hope that the noble Baroness will take that on board and assure me that some mechanism will be in place to stop the Gadarene rush in the expenditure of public money.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I spoke and voted for your Lordships' amendment when it was previously before the House. I remain sceptical about the costs, whether estimated by the London School of Economics or by the Government. Taking an estimate of costs over 10 years and dividing by 10 to arrive at an annual cost is, to put it mildly in such a complex area as IT management, a little difficult to comprehend.
	The amendment now before the House is called the Dobson amendment as it was proposed, in another place, by my right honourable friend Frank Dobson. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I did not go into the Chamber to hear him speak, but I have read what he said in considerable detail. He thought that, if the costs turned out as the Minister has estimated, it would be the greatest miracle he has ever seen. He was also very harsh on IT management companies which he described as the greatest intergalactic rip-off merchants of all time. That is a little unfair because many other people rip off governments; many consultants have done so and I am sure will continue to do so. However, in this case the Opposition seemed to be accepting, as the noble Baroness said, that Frank Dobson was over optimistic—"naive" is another word. The purpose of his amendment is that at the end of six months, if there are, as he puts it, huge increases taking place, it will not be too late for us to say, "Stop". Anyone who has considered these matters in another place will know that for the House of Commons to say "Stop" to a government is, to put it mildly, unlikely.
	The plain fact is that the only people who, I hope, will take note of the amendment are those in the Treasury who seem to have been very silent in recent times about this. At least they will have some vague understanding about the costs. It would be nice if my noble friend, in whom I have enormous trust, were to accept that any of these costs, given the assumptions that have to be made, whether up to six months or as they were previously, are estimates and highly speculative estimates at the best of times. I would not like to make a forecast of costs of anything next year, let alone over a 10-year period. I see her smile, so perhaps she will accept what I am saying. To take a cost over 10 years of anything, especially in the area of IT, is, to put it mildly, given the experience that all governments have had over a long time, difficult. I have no doubt that if the noble Baroness were sitting on this side of the House, she would be introducing an identity card Bill and our side would be vigorously opposing it—that is a fact of life.
	I voted for the Lords' amendment even though, as I said at the time, I did not like the amendment but I wanted to give the other place a chance to rethink. It has "rethunk"—if that is a word—and has come up with the Dobson Amendment No. 70A in lieu. The words, "every six months" will not help in any way. In practice, the Bill will go ahead with excessive costs, as there will inevitably be, although there is a remote possibility—I hope it is not remote—that some people in the Treasury will take note of them. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that we should not take this further and I am happy to go along with that.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I ought to briefly point out two problems with Commons Amendment No. 70A which we are about to accept. First, subsection (3) allows huge capacity for creative accounting, because the cost of issuing passports is not there. It would therefore be easy to offload a lot of the costs of issuing ID cards on to the issuing of passports. Secondly, in order to deliver the stated benefits in the Bill, you have to integrate or interface with a lot of other government systems. Again, it would be possible to put those integration costs into another budget so that they do not appear in these figures. This is a warning to people who scrutinise these things in future: look out for that. Try to look at some of the other things.
	Lastly, in subsection (4), it would easy to hide any difficulties by citing commercial confidentiality. I hope that the secrecy over the government Gateway reviews which have so far taken place will not extend into this area as well; otherwise the worst things are hidden from us, and will continue to be hidden.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and indications given by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I am pleased that we have been able to give a modicum of pleasure to the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Even my noble friend Lord Barnett has had a little pleasure—I see him smiling—as has the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.
	We now have a mechanism where costs can be looked on a six-month rolling basis. We see that there are advantages, and I can reassure my noble friend Lord Barnett that the Treasury has lost none of its edge.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Motion B
	3 Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out "or" and insert "recorded, stored and"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment, but propose Amendment No. 3A in lieu—
	3A Page 1, line 7, after "a" insert "secure and reliable"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 3 and do agree to Amendment No. 3A proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.
	Lords Amendment No. 3 inserted into Clause 1(3)(b) the proposition that the methods by which registrable facts are recorded and stored must be secure and reliable. We opposed this on Report, on the grounds that it was unnecessary. The Secretary of State must do his utmost to ensure the security and reliability of information recorded and stored on the register, following from his general public law duty, as well as from enactments such as the Data Protection Act. There is no need to state it in this Bill.
	However, if an amendment of this nature was to be made, we did not think that this one was at the right place in the clause. It is in a subsection which relates to the provision of information from the register, not the storage of information on it. During consideration of this House's amendment in another place, government Amendment No. 3A was substituted. This clarifies that the record of registrable facts to be used for identification and verification must be secure and reliable. With respect, it captures the desired effect of your Lordships' amendment, and was accepted in the other place without a Division. I therefore invite the House to accept it.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 3 and do agree to Amendment No. 3A proposed by the Common in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, my amendment has been replaced by the words shown on the paper. I am happy to accept the revised wording, which achieves precisely the purpose intended by my own amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, for clarity, we also accept the Government's Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Motion C
	4 Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out "securing the efficient and effective provision of" and insert "preventing illegal or fraudulent access to"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason:
	4A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate to limit, as provided for by the amendment, the circumstances in which something is to be regarded as necessary in the public interest

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason No. 4A.
	Amendment No. 4 limited the public interest test as defined in Clause 1(4), in so far as public services go to preventing illegal or fraudulent access to public services. This would potentially limit the benefits to the public from the introduction of identity cards supported by a national identity register. I hope that all noble Lords, on all sides of the House, would want to see the identity card scheme used to help make the delivery of public services better, not just as a way of combating fraud.
	It is surely in everyone's interest to help deliver public services more efficiently and effectively. That must be in the interests of the public, both as taxpayers and as users of services. Inefficiency in public services is of no benefit to anyone—apart perhaps from the fraudster.
	Transforming public services will be helped by being able to provide a secure, reliable and fast way of confirming identity. That is why we believe it would be wrong to regard the use of identity cards as simply a guard against fraud. Of course combating fraud will be one of the purposes of the identity cards scheme—and a very important one—but not the only one.
	We believe that the public will want the introduction of identity cards to be used as a way of helping public services deliver quicker and better services. This, for example, could include the future development of services over the internet. We see real advantages in being able to fill in one form instead of many. We would go further and say that it would be possible to create a single "one-stop" procedure for updating addresses on government department records, so that when someone moves house and notifies the new address to the National Identity Register that new address is notified onwards to the departments dealing with national insurance, pensions, driving licences and so on. That would make life easier for the citizen and would ensure that other departments did not continue to hold out-of-date and inaccurate records.
	Such a scheme would be designed to enable more efficient and effective delivery of public services and to help the citizen. It would be hard to argue that it was needed just as a fraud prevention measure, which is what Amendment No. 4 would suggest. For any requirement to use identity cards to access public services there are already provisions and safeguards at Clauses 15 and 16 and it could not be a requirement to produce an identity card to access free public services or to claim any state benefits until we move to compulsion when everyone would have an identity card.
	So, by restricting the statutory purposes of the scheme only to combating illegal or fraudulent access to public services, we would be defining the card scheme far too narrowly and would risk restricting the usefulness of the identity cards scheme to the public, which, after all, is one of the key purposes of the identity cards scheme.
	We believe that we should not prevent the identity cards scheme being used as a way of helping to deliver better public services. It is not just a question of combating fraudulent use of public services, we also should be using the identity cards scheme to help to transform services.
	When these amendments were considered in the other place, Amendment No. 4 was rejected without a Division. I invite this House to do the same, as it is clearly not in the public interest to make this change.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason No. 4A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, again for clarity I say at the beginning that we do not oppose Motion C in the name of the Minister. She refers to the treatment of this amendment in another place and another place's decision. Of course the treatment of it demonstrates the limitation allowed in another place for consideration of Lords' amendments. The only direct reference to this amendment lies in its demise:
	"Lords Amendment No. 4 disagreed to".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/06; col. 1244.]
	It was not even mentioned by Mr Speaker when he called that particular group on costs to be debated. We are told that the Commons disagreed to the amendment because they,
	"do not consider it appropriate to limit, as provided for by the amendment, the circumstances in which something is to be regarded as necessary in the public interest".
	The Minister has today argued that because ID cards are intended by the Government to assist with the better provision of public services they should be within the definition of purposes. Of course everybody is in favour of the better and more efficient delivery of public services. Who could be against that? The question is how one does that, what the best approaches are and whether the concoction of this bureaucratic nightmare of the ID register will be the best way forward.
	When I considered the appropriate way to respond to the Government's Motion, I had it very firmly in my mind that at this stage in the parliamentary proceedings it was not right to re-open a Second Reading-type of debate on matters of principle. We debated the matter fully at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and, like other amendments we are to reach shortly, I feel that we would not achieve any further progress if we continued with what would be very complex debates today. This is an occasion for debate on clear matters of issue rather than complex issues that underlie the Bill's purposes.
	On that basis, despite the very cavalier treatment of my amendment in another place, by which, of course, I am not wounded to the quick—I accept an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, did the noble Baroness hear my noble friend explain that one of the great advantages of what is proposed is that when you intimate a change of your circumstances to the national identity register, it is envisaged that that will enable other departments to be informed of that change in circumstances? That will be a substantial benefit for everyone, but especially for old people, who will not have to go through the tedious job of informing every department. It will automatically be done. Is that not one of many, many advantages of the national identity card scheme, which is why it is overwhelmingly supported by a large majority of people in this country?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord paints a utopia which did not exist in the 16th century, either—I am thinking of Sir Thomas More. First, as for the great majority of people, the most recent polls in November and just last week showed that the greatest majority of people who support identity cards is 52 per cent. The noble Lord's definition of the great majority does not quite coincide with mine.
	As for older people, some may indeed find it convenient. I must say that the only letters that I have received from people aged over 70, including the latest today, have asked me fervently to persuade the Government to exclude those over 70. I shall be delighted to forward the letter that I received only today to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I shall try to make sure that I do so; he will remind me if I forget.
	The noble Lord repeats the arguments made by the Minister about the convenience of the scheme. In particular, he refers to the joy that we will have in notifying the national identity register when we change addresses. I know that the noble Lord was unable to be with us for all our debates—I am sure that he attended as much as he could—but we had significant debate about the fact that the Government have left to themselves an enabling power in this skeleton Bill to force us to provide our change of address on each and every occasion.
	The Minister said that the Government hoped or intended only to require us to notify a change of address when we had lived there for more than three months. Well, "Whoopee!", is all I can say. That means that I would have to think back to every place I have lived during my 58 years and when I lived there, to notify all that and then to notify changes of address thereafter after three months. Under later provisions in the Bill, you would then face a civil penalty—after all, if you are paying money, that is a fine—if you forgot to notify your change of address.
	The noble Lord has enabled me to remind the House again of the problems of the system, but he does so unnecessarily because, on this one, I did intend to go quietly.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, this is not a time for Second Reading speeches, but, having heard the sales patter from both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I just want to say that that was greatly discussed and we know from previous debates that all those aims can equally effectively be achieved with what is currently available. You do not need the ID card for that; read our previous debates.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, briefly, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. It is a pity that the amendment was not accepted, but there we are; that is the way of the world and one must accept it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Motion D
	16 Clause 5, page 4, line 44, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	16A Because the Commons consider it appropriate that a person applying for a designated document be required at the same time to apply to be entered in the Register and to have an ID Card issued to him
	22 Clause 8, page 7, line 42, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	22A Because the Commons consider it appropriate that a person applying for a designated document be required at the same time to apply to be entered in the Register and to have an ID Card issued to him.3.45 pm

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 16A and 22A.
	This House has behaved in such an exemplary way so far on Motions A, B and C that I am confident that that pattern will be followed on this Motion as well, especially bearing in mind that the other place has expressed itself so clearly on two occasions. In that hope and expectation, I shall now deal with the Motion.
	We discussed these amendments at some length on Report on 23 January when your Lordships' House passed them. However, a very similar amendment had already been defeated on Report in the other place on 18 October by a majority of 32. Your Lordships' amendments were discussed again in the other place on 13 February and were rejected yet again by the elected House by a majority of 31. This issue has been debated, voted on and approved twice by the elected House, and I must say that it is now time for your Lordships to accept with the stunning good grace that you have shown today, that this part of the Identity Cards Bill should remain as originally proposed, and that the Lords' amendments should not be insisted upon.
	Although Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 rest on changing a "must" to a "may", which seems a very small change, they would undermine the whole basis of the current identity cards proposal, and for that reason the Government, with the support of the elected House, will continue to resist them strongly. The amendments would make registration and the issue of an identity card an optional extra for anyone applying for a designated document such as a British passport or residence permit for foreign nationals. We have always been clear that the identity cards scheme is being designed and is eventually intended to become a compulsory scheme for all United Kingdom residents and that, in the second phase of the scheme, it will be a requirement to register, with a civil financial penalty regime for failure to do so.
	We have also always been equally clear that linking identity cards to the issue of designated documents is a central part of the scheme in the first phase. This will enable a sensible phased introduction of identity cards. Once passports and residence permits are designated, British nationals resident in the United Kingdom who renew or apply for their passports and foreign nationals who renew or apply for their residence permits will be entered on the national identity register and issued with cards that will serve as ID cards. This will provide advantages for the individual. We are already planning to introduce fingerprint biometric passports that will require all applicants to attend a local enrolment centre. Using this self-same process to enrol the additional iris biometric for the identity cards scheme, rather than expecting people to come back later when the second compulsory phase of the identity cards scheme is introduced, as it is clearly intended to be, makes simple common sense.
	We are starting today to phase in the issue of e-passports incorporating a facial image biometric. This will be the first-generation biometric passport, but once we have moved on to the next phase—that is, biometric passports that include facial image and fingerprint biometrics—anyone applying for a passport will have to go through the same application process that they have to go through for an identity card, and their personal details and biometrics will be recorded on a central database, albeit a passport database, rather than the national identity register. So merging the two processes will add the statutory safeguards, such as the creation of a national identity scheme commissioner, provided by this Bill.
	Later this year, we will start to interview all adult first-time passport applicants in order to confirm their identity. This, of course, will require a personal visit to a local office, just as enrolling biometrics for the identity card will. The United Kingdom Passport Service is already establishing a network of new local offices to undertake these interviews. Not only will people therefore have to go through more or less the same procedure to obtain a passport as they do for an identity card but, by linking the issue of identity cards and passports, we will provide a more convenient and secure identity document that can be used to prove identity in a wide variety of situations domestically as well as being a travel document. In practice, the process of obtaining a passport and that of obtaining an identity card will be combined in the future. Issuing the two documents as a package will be just as convenient and makes much more sense than applying for just a biometric passport.
	What does it give society as a whole? It will mean that we will be able to start using the identity cards scheme and the national identity register for the purposes set out in Clause 1; that is, to improve identification where it is in the public interest—national security, prevention and detection of crime, enforcement of immigration controls and controls on illegal working—as well as more efficient and effective delivery of public services. If we provide an opt out, we put all those benefits at risk and would certainly delay them.
	Focusing on passports and residence permits means that we can enrol on the register a manageable number of people each year who will, in any event, be going through the process of obtaining an existing identity document. That will minimise any uncertainties that would otherwise apply to rolling out the identity cards scheme and so will reduce costs, something in which your Lordships have expressed a real interest throughout our debates.
	The benefits of the identity cards scheme will grow steadily as more people obtain their cards. Linking identity cards to the issue or renewal of a document such as a passport, which around 80 per cent of the population already holds, means that there will be a manageable roll out of the identity cards scheme. That must surely be in the public interest. If those who say that they are concerned about the costs of the scheme really want to avoid excessive costs, they must accept the logic of combining the process for issuing identity cards with passports and with immigration documents.
	I confirm again that the Government's intention is to designate British passports issued to United Kingdom residents aged 16 or over, so that an identity card must be issued alongside a passport as a "package". But, secondly, it is intended to designate residence permits and other immigration documents issued to foreign nationals coming to reside in the United Kingdom for more than three months: the residence permit would also become valid as an identity card. If we agree to these amendments, foreign nationals applying to stay in the United Kingdom could also opt out of the need to be registered and to have their biometrics held on the national identity register. As an immigration control measure it is essential that we do not allow people to opt out in that way.
	In addition to designated documents we also intend to issue stand-alone identity cards on a voluntary basis, but these would be issued under Clause 8 and would not require the use of the designation power in Clause 4. As we have always made clear, the legislation should be flexible enough to allow for the possibility of designation of other official documents in the future. However, I can confirm again that we have no current plans to designate any documents other than passports and immigration documents.
	There are four very clear "common-sense" reasons why these amendments should be rejected—costs, benefits, convenience and security. First, the Government want the identity cards scheme to provide the greatest benefits at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. If we accept these amendments, the cost of establishing the scheme would be bound to rise because of the greater complexity of handling an optional service where some people could opt out of having an identity card when obtaining a passport. Costs would also rise because there would be greater uncertainty as to the likely volumes of identity card applications, at least in the initial phase, which could have an impact on the unit cost and so the fee level for identity cards.
	Secondly, there would also be an impact on the benefits of the identity card scheme. If there is doubt over the speed of the roll-out of the identity cards, inevitably that will result in a slowdown in the wider benefits being achieved. That would be the case whether it concerned combating illegal immigration or improving the effectiveness of public services.
	Thirdly, there is the question of convenience to the public. It really does not make sense to issue a biometric passport without the accompanying identity card. The process of enrolling biometrics and checking identity for both documents will be virtually identical, so there would be very little difference in the fee that would apply to both documents. On its own, the passport will continue to be of value as a travel document, but little more, whereas the identity card will be used widely as a quick, easy and secure way of proving identity.
	Fourthly, there is the question of security. We would be offering an open goal to fraudsters, criminals or to immigration offenders if we said that they could simply choose to avoid being included in the national identity register when they applied for a passport or an immigration document. I know that that cannot be what any of your Lordships would wish. It would not make sense for us to design a system that was more expensive, produced fewer benefits, was less convenient to the individual and put security at risk. On the grounds of common sense alone, we believe that these amendments must be rejected.
	I hope that I have demonstrated that it is essential for us to establish a clear and definite link between an application for a designated document such as a passport and an entry on to the national identity register, and that this has always been our clearly stated policy. Indeed, once we move on to the introduction of passports with fingerprint biometrics, the process for obtaining a passport and an identity card will be so similar as to make the need to combine the two processes quite obvious. Further, there would of course be no possibility of designating any document until the identity card scheme is introduced, while the designation order itself will need to set out the exact details of the proposed class of document, with any exceptions, and will need to specify the timetable for designation. Each designation order brought forward under Clause 4 will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. So this is not something that could be done without an opportunity for proper debate and scrutiny.
	Your Lordships' House has made its views known once to the other place. That was absolutely right and proper. However, there is now an overwhelming case for this House to accept the view of the elected House and not to insist on these amendments any further. I therefore move that your Lordships' House should not insist on Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 and should accept the view expressed twice in the other place for the reasons I have outlined.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons numbered 16A and 22A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: rose to move, as an amendment to Motion D, Amendment D1, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments 16 and 22".

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment D1 as an amendment to Motion D. On 23 January, at the Report stage of the Identity Cards Bill, this House voted by a majority of 44 to make the Bill voluntary. As a mark of the seriousness with which we view the Bill, and in particular this provision, the Conservative Front Bench and Members on these Benches have agreed only to seek to overturn this amendment among the dozen or so thrown back at us by the Commons.
	It is not often that it is left to the Opposition to ensure that a government honour their own election pledge, but that is what we will be doing in this House if we insist on our amendment today. Page 52 of the 111-page manifesto on which the Labour Government were elected last year states:
	"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	On the last occasion, although I must confess not this time, the noble Baroness endeavoured to argue that black was white and that,
	"we should not press our amendment because to do so would significantly contravene the clear intention of the people of this country who entrusted the organisation of these matters to this Government".—[Official Report, 23/1/06; col. 975.]
	I shall say a little about the manifesto pledge in a moment.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain how the Bill, as it is now before this House, does not follow precisely the wording of the manifesto?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am coming to it, as the bishop said. "Voluntary" means "voluntary"; "must" means "must"—that is rolling out the logic. To make matters abundantly clear, the manifesto talks specifically of introducing ID cards on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports. The Bill, however, via designation, which the Government have made absolutely plain they intend to implement vis-à-vis passports as soon as practical, would mean that ID cards would be rolled out initially on a compulsory basis as people renewed their passports. You could not renew them unless you had an ID card—it is as simple as that. Last time, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made this point:
	"The indirect compulsion denies me the right to travel if I apply only for a passport that I do want, but not for an identity card that I do not want".—[Official Report, 23/1/06; col. 974.]
	As the Home Affairs Committee said about ID cards:
	"For most people, to travel abroad and to drive are fundamentals. It cannot be argued that these would be given up voluntarily. To describe the first phase of the Government's proposals as 'voluntary' stretches the English language to breaking point".
	Even John Denham, chairman of the committee and a strong supporter of ID cards, owned up to that when the Commons debated this amendment on 13 February. It is also significant that the Home Secretary did not hide behind doublespeak when he spoke against the Lords amendment on that day.
	It ill behoves this place in particular to add to public disconnectedness from politics in this country—see the Power Commission report last week—to deny what is clear in the manifesto. It was Humpty Dumpty, was it not, who said:
	"When I use a word . . . it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less".
	And we all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty.
	Quite apart from this, we on this side of the House also believe that the ID cards scheme, on merits, needs to be voluntary unless, of course, primary legislation is later introduced to make it compulsory—a principle that the Government conceded in the Commons with regard to Clause 6.
	It is no longer clear to me just what benefits the compulsory scheme would bestow, just as it has never been clear what it is likely to cost. That, too, points to a voluntary card. As the Bill has progressed, the case for it has become less clear. We do not hear much about the impact on terrorism these days. Stella Rimington and my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew may have something to do with that. Indeed, some police seem to be having second thoughts, especially in terms of the potential effects on already weak relations with the public, particularly among the minority communities.
	As for crime, not much about that was heard during the Commons debate on our amendment, nor has been heard today. Social security fraud is still about falsifying one's circumstances in more than 90 per cent of cases. That leaves immigration, where different documentation prevails, and migrant workers, where there will be some modest assistance.
	Even the Prime Minister, defending at length his record on civil liberties in the Observer on 26 February, could muster only this to justify his grandiose ID cards scheme:
	"On ID cards, there is a host of arguments, irrespective of security, why their time has come. Most people already have a range of different cards, for workplace, bank or leisure. And, contrary to what is said, it will not be an offence not to carry one".
	There was nothing about compulsion or, indeed, much else. All the cards I carry I will still have to carry if I have an ID card.
	When I spoke at the Westminster Foundation conference on 14 February, along with Andy Burnham, Home Office Minister responsible for ID cards and passports, he more than once justified compulsion by reference to the fact that, as he put it, more than 70 per cent of the public support the introduction of ID cards. If the Government are so confident of that, why the need for compulsion? But the latest news on the polling front from an in-depth YouGov poll in the Daily Telegraph last Monday shows support down to 52 per cent. As Professor Anthony King explained:
	"People doubt whether cards will materially assist in the war on terror and clearly think that a national scheme will be shot full of holes. Yet a small majority, 52 per cent, persist in saying that the cards should be brought in. They appear not to have noticed the contradiction between their long-standing predilection for cards and their up-to-date assessment of what having the cards will actually mean".
	For example, 80 per cent of them believe in the corruptibility of the cards and 75 per cent in the likely substantial cost hike. In effect, as happened in New South Wales, the more the public get to learn and understand about compulsory cards, the less they like them. I will wager the Minister that, in a month or two, a poll will show more people agin the cards than for them. We will talk afterwards.
	Another reason for keeping the scheme voluntary is that there is still so much muddle, even at ministerial level. For example, Charles Clarke said in the Commons in the debate on 13 February in relation to the information on the register:
	"Individuals . . . will not give more information to the state than they do at present. That is an important point to grasp".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/06; col. 1177.]
	That point has been repeatedly made and has been made in this House. But what he has not grasped is that all the audit trail data—all the validation information provided by an applicant or collected from an applicant by the registrar to verify the facts on the register, plus the security information, plus a complete set of personal reference numbers—will be recorded on every one of us. That is not information currently required for a passport, nor is the requirement in Clause 1 of the Bill where we have to give the address, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said a few minutes ago, of every place we have ever resided, whether in the UK or elsewhere and how long we resided there. That is not required for passports or for any of the other documentation referred to by the Home Secretary in the Commons.
	I also note that the international civil aviation organisations all call for two digitised biometrics and a picture, whereas we are going for 13. Take the issue of driving licences, to which the noble Baroness referred today. Under Clause 4 of the Bill, they could be designated, which would mean that we would have to have ID cards when we renewed our licences. In the 13 February debate, at col. 1175, the Home Secretary said that he had looked actively at designating driving licences but had decided not to do so. However, the very next day Mr Burnham stated:
	"We haven't yet, at this point, taken a decision whether or not . . . the criminal record disclosure process should become part of the designated document process, and that is also true of the driving licence".
	That is a very big difference between two Ministers of the realm responsible for this ID card scheme on crucial policy.
	We could also take the vexed issue of access to the ID register by foreign persons and governments. One of his own Back Benchers pointedly asked the Home Secretary on 13 February whether it would be possible for the Americans to intrude on and get information from the ID register. The Home Secretary categorically denied, at col. 1177, that there would be any such access. In fact, that is definitely not the case. Clause 20 of the original Bill, headed,
	"Prevention and detection of crime",
	authorises the provision of information on the register if it is provided for any of the purposes specified in Section 17 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. That, as I have said before on this Bill, drives a coach and horses through protection of our ID card data, because it expressly entitles any foreign individual or authority access to the ID—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, given the comments that the noble Lord has just made in relation to the assertions made in the other place by my right honourable friend, it is only right that I should seek to correct what is, I am sure, a totally inadvertent misunderstanding of the position. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right: information could be provided from the register to overseas law enforcement agencies in relation to criminal proceedings and investigations in the circumstances set out in Clause 20. As I am sure noble Lords will remember, that parallels the existing powers in Sections 17 and 18 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. However, the power is subject to safeguards. The audit trail information in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 can be provided only for the prevention and detection of serious crime. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that other countries and their intelligence services will not have access to the register or to the database; that is not the way the system will operate. That is correct, and perhaps the noble Lord was not totally aware that it was the position. I wanted to give him the opportunity to understand better how the system works.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I forewarned the Minister's office that I was going to make that point, and she has responded to it. However, I ask the House to consider Hansard from 13 February:
	"Mr. Hollobone: What rights would other countries have to access the UK identity cards register if we hold information about their citizens?
	Mr. Clarke: None".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/06; col. 1177.]
	That is wrong. Through the provisions of Section 17 of the 2001 Act and Clause 20 of this Bill, they will have rights to access not the audit trail data, but all the other information on the register, which, as I have endeavoured to indicate to the House, is very widespread. I point this out not to score points, but to make the general argument that this is a thoroughly ill thought-out measure, and I do not retract that for a second.
	Let me be clear. If this Bill really was just about identity cards, many of us would have few misgivings, if any. If the cards were voluntary, the same would be true. But we have here a Bill that is compulsory; that would require 40 million-plus citizens to be interviewed for the purposes of taking out an ID card, though I accept that if they were getting a passport at the same time they would make only one trip; that gives the Home Secretary 61 order-making powers that carry heavy penalties for citizen failures; and, above all, that has attached to it a major database of our private information, some of it highly personal. Tony McNulty, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, said in the same debate in the Commons on 13 February:
	"We have always said that the most important element of the programme was the database that stands behind the card".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/06; col. 1145.]
	Too true—and too bad.
	Apart from the specifics of ID cards, and of making them effectively compulsory, there remains the intangible but vital issue of how they could affect our civic harmony in the long term. In a hyper-technical age, it is too easy to be blinded by the technology and to assume that if it is there it must be used and that it can do what it cannot. It is still the imponderables that matter most to most people—hope, trust, loyalty—elusive as they are to auditing and accountability, the nostrums of our age. Probably half of those who have written to me on this subject, none of whom has been a supporter of our uniquely centralised and data-laden compulsory cards, have been most concerned about the impact of an ever more intrusive, all-knowing state on the culture of their lives, and of the quality and feel of the society of which we are all part.
	Ultimately security, too, depends on trust. Without broad trust there is no allegiance, and without allegiance the police and security services can never be adequately supported, as Northern Ireland surely showed. Indeed, it is the disconnectedness between police and public that is so destructive of enforcement of the law. Without a good flow of informal intelligence, the main fruit of public support for law and order, no amount of technology, CCTV cameras, face scanners, car trackers or indeed audit trails will make up for it.
	We are also anxious that this huge, impersonal scheme could create an insidious chemistry between the citizen and the state, wholly counterproductive to that which we all seek. That could in part derive from the compulsory collection of audit trail personal data under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1, just in case it might become useful. "Just in case" is not a proper basis on which a civilised state should intrude on the privacy of its citizens, which is why the Information Commissioner, who was put there by this Parliament for a purpose, made his strong statement last October warning us of "unwarranted and intrusive" powers and of sleepwalking into the snooping state via what David Davis in the other place called "a culture of complacency".
	I used to take great pride in the light rein cast upon us by the state in this country; that works much the best. This amendment will buttress good sense and wise government. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion D, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22".—(Lord Phillips of Sudbury.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords opposite who have a great interest in this amendment. However, I thought it might be helpful to the House if I put one or two issues on the record before the debate widened out. I make it clear that on this occasion I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and oppose the Government's Motion. That is the only time today when I shall oppose a government Motion.
	I support every argument that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has made. It would not be right to take the House's time in repeating those arguments. I will confine myself to addressing another matter of parliamentary procedure to which the Minister and one or two of her colleagues have referred in previous debates on the Bill and, more recently, in their contributions to national newspapers. The Minister has said that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is in breach of the Salisbury convention. Let me meet that accusation head on. I say very firmly that this House should not entertain that view. The Salisbury convention, to which we continue to subscribe, is an agreement between the Labour and Conservative Parties in this House that neither party would, when in opposition, vote at Second Reading against legislation that was set out in the governing party's manifesto or seek a wrecking amendment to it. Many argue that the Salisbury convention may have evolved with time, and certainly with the change to this House in 1999, but the formulation I have given was the maximalist one. To be as fair as possible to the Government I will, for the sake of this argument, apply that today.
	What did the Labour manifesto say on ID cards? The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, quoted the precise words. It states:
	"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	Nothing in this amendment obstructs that manifesto commitment. The Salisbury convention means that this House could not block a genuinely voluntary Bill. But that is not what this amendment does. If this amendment is passed, the Government can still introduce identity cards. They can still back them up with a national register. They can still roll them out on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports. Indeed, responding to a comment made by the Minister in another place, Mr Burnham, on the radio this morning, I would say that they can still roll them out incrementally—that is still perfectly possible. There is nothing in this amendment against the Salisbury doctrine, but there is a great deal in it for the voluntary approach promised in Labour's manifesto. This House is surely entitled to stick to its guns on a matter which the Constitution Committee of this House said represents a fundamental change in the relationship between state and a people, and where that fundamental change was not set out in the manifesto.
	Ministers have said, including the noble Baroness at other stages of the Bill, that the fact that Ministers have made speeches about a compulsory scheme is sufficient to bring that part of the manifesto within the Salisbury convention, and that we on the Conservative Benches should therefore accept the Government's proposals for compulsion by stealth. We believe that is a poor argument by the noble Baroness's extremely high standards, but that it is certainly poor by anyone's standards. Since when, one might ask, does a ministerial interview or a past failed Bill bind this House? Ministers had a chance to state clearly and openly in the manifesto that if elected they would force us all to be registered and to pay for an ID card with our passport before being given the freedom to go abroad for work, for a holiday, or for whatever reason—but they did not take that opportunity. That was their choice. Having made that choice, they should not present legislation that is not on a voluntary basis but on the basis of compulsion, call on the Salisbury convention, and expect those of us on these Benches to cave in. That is not the way that Parliament has ever worked; and I hope that it will never work that way.
	Let us consider for just a moment what the consequences might be in the very dim and distant future if one accepted today that things should be allowed to work in that way. What if a government deliberately left out of a manifesto any mention of plans that Ministers had in mind—but about which they did not wish to put off or deter the voters? If they did so and were then allowed to claim the protection of the Salisbury convention because Ministers had made speeches on the matter, it would be an incentive and a reward for being economical with the truth. Surely, none of us would want that as part of our system of government. That is for future consideration, but it could be a consequence of today accepting any argument that we on these Benches should be bound on this Motion by the Salisbury convention.
	Let us hear no more from any quarter, either in Parliament or in newspaper articles, about any so-called breach of the Salisbury convention by these Benches. There is none in this case; and there will be none. I firmly support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, in the past six months this House has debated a series of Bills dealing with security and identity. It would be impossible to have followed those debates without being impressed by them and without learning from them, and I for one have learnt a great deal. One does not have to agree with an argument to see its merit, and I have come to understand the force with which Members on both sides are committed to a point of view with which I simply do not agree; but I respect those contrary views and I have learnt a lot from them.
	As time has passed, two things have become clear. First, step by step, the Government are getting their legislation through and the public's will is prevailing. Democracy and common sense are winning the day, albeit slowly. There will be those, and there have been those today, who say that public support for identity cards has fallen; but let us look at the facts. In the Daily Telegraph in February, YouGov, in a poll that caused such enormous excitement on the Liberal Democrat Benches, showed a lead of 52 per cent in favour of ID cards compared to 37 per cent against. That is still a pretty large lead as far as I am concerned.
	If we look at the same pollster, in June 2005 YouGov had 45 per cent in favour and 42 per cent against. A lead of 3 per cent has expanded to a lead of 15 per cent, with the same pollster, using the same methodology, over the very six months that we have been debating these issues. If the tide has turned, it has turned with us and not in the other direction.
	I have observed a second tendency. As time has passed, relationships between the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches have gradually become closer. Letters have been passed, jokes shared, meetings held; acquaintance has turned to friendship, which has turned in time to something approaching courting.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, by what means did the noble Lord learn that I have been dating the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay?

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, because the noble Lord is always going up to her and exchanging notes—not lavender notes, but notes.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brookwood, my near geographical neighbour, any comments to make about me passing notes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland? I am agog with developing interest.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, I welcome both the noble Baroness's introductions and her false modesty.
	The relationship reached its full consummation this morning, however, when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who, I see, is not in his place, said in an interview that he was forming an alliance with the Liberal Democrats. The mind boggles. What will this new alliance be called? Perhaps the "Conservative and Liberal Union", a union designed to oppose measures that help our security, whatever the people say and whatever the other place decides.
	Sadly, it is now impossible to tell where the Conservative Benches end and the Liberal Democrat Benches begin. The issue today is the spurious use of the concept of "voluntary", a piece of spin of the kind that I thought that most of us, including me, had given up some time ago. Despite attempts to distort the manifesto, I see it as quite plain: I will not read out the whole thing again, as it has been read out 50 times. However, it states:
	"We will introduce identity cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	That seems clear. Noble Lords cannot understand it, but the people would understand it. It is not a compulsory activity—when they renew their passport, they receive an identity card. It is clear and the public get it, but I am afraid that the Benches opposite do not. This attack is spurious and should be repelled. The will of the people and the elected Parliament should prevail.
	These are new times with new challenges. The politics of identity demands new approaches, and the rise of identity theft and welfare fraud new solutions. We must choose between serving the people and forming alliances designed to thwart the will of the people. I know which choice I will make.
	I end as I always end. Let us—this time, I am delighted to say, with the support of the Power Commission—trust the people for they will not let us down.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have three simple and straightforward points to make.
	First, it is wholly illogical that the Government, having accepted that the scheme as a whole should not become compulsory without primary legislation, should be telling us that we should accept creeping compulsion without primary legislation. Creeping compulsion is wrong, but it is also illogical in view of the Government's decision about further primary legislation in the next year or so.
	Secondly, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Gould, has said, not by the greatest stretch of the imagination can creeping compulsion be said to be sanctioned by the Labour Party election manifesto, which referred, as we have heard, to a scheme rolled out,
	"initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	It is absurd to suggest that a person who has to travel volunteers to apply for a renewal of his passport when his old passport expires. He is required to obtain a renewal because his old passport has expired. It does not require a genius to recognise that.
	Thirdly, creeping compulsion may be convenient from an administrative point of view. The Minister talked euphemistically of a manageable roll-out. Those required to register, however, will be selected on an entirely arbitrary basis. It will not depend on any rational assessment as to whom the state would like to see registered but on whose passport expires in a particular year, and on the pure chance of whose passports come up for renewal. It is impossible to see how this will help the fulfilment of any of the aims of the Government's scheme. Indeed, a lot of time and money will be wasted as a result of people requiring access to the register only to find that there is no entry for the person on whom they seek information, because that person has not come up in the lottery and has not been required to apply for a new passport. I invite the House to support these sensible amendments.

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, as I think I am probably the only historian in the House, I should like to say something very briefly. I think that the Government have not recognised the extent to which the idea of a compulsory registration of citizens on a national register is a break with our national traditions. Despite what the late Lord Stratford once said, I am among those who believe that traditions are to a nation what a soul is to a man.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Phillips, who said that this measure was ill thought through, perhaps I may remind the Minister of the written reply that I received from her last week on passports. She rightly said that, from the last quarter of this year, every new adult passport applicant—and there are about a million of those each year—will have to go for a personal interview to verify their identity. I asked the Government where the 69 new passport interviewing offices would be located. Currently there are only seven offices, so the number will increase to 69. The Government's Answer was, "We don't know; we haven't decided. We're negotiating". So within six months we are to have these new passport offices but as of last week the Government could not tell me where they were to be located.
	Some 600 new officers are to be trained but that training has not even started yet. There are so many imponderables here. The Government are not only presenting us with a measure that is ill thought through but they are doing so in total unpreparedness. Everyone will need a personal interview within six months but there is no word on how that will be accomplished. It is not only ill thought through; it is also totally unacceptable.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I have four quick points. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, if these things are so wonderful and convenient, everyone will want one—so what is the problem? The noble Lord, Lord Gould's, concept of voluntary sounds a bit like the Army sergeant who walked into the canteen and said, "Any musicians here?". When someone with very delicate fingers volunteered that he was, he was sent to the officers' mess to move the grand piano.
	Secondly, I say to the Minister that it is splitting hairs very finely to suggest that foreign agencies may not have direct access to the database but they can get the information on the database. That is splitting hairs very finely. I am very glad to hear that they will not have direct access to the database as that would be a major security risk.
	Thirdly, I presume that Motion F will be agreed to because there is no Motion suggesting that it will not be. That means that the system will be self-checking. The commissioner will be part of the department which will be checking itself. I very much disapprove of these modern systems that do not have outside checks. The commissioner should be answerable to Parliament. It is horrific that the Commons turned down that proposal. Given that it has been turned down, I think we must keep this thing voluntary. I might think otherwise if we were to have an independent commissioner who was outside the Secretary of State's power and reported directly to Parliament. I still would not be happy at all though. How can an employee criticise their own boss? It would not be good for one's career prospects.
	Finally, a lot has been said about the manifesto commitment. It is extreme hypocrisy when a government use a manifesto commitment to drive a proposal through the House until it does not suit them, when they abandon the doctrine of the manifesto commitment. They cannot have it both ways. If they force through this proposal against their manifesto commitment, I think that in future they will have to drop their demand that we support a manifesto commitment without any modification. We should be permitted in future to modify manifesto commitments in the light of current thinking in the country since the last general election, and given that the Government had the support of only about one-third of the voters in the country.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, perhaps I may, from these Benches, express my support for this amendment. As many of my noble friends know, I take great exception to the idea of identity cards because, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—our historian—I believe that it flies in the face of the great traditions of this country. The fact that we are nation built on the common law is not without significance. The common law was built on the acceptance and understanding that we should approach power with a degree of scepticism. Unlike the rest of Europe, which had the Napoleonic code, we in Britain, including Scotland, incorporated into our system of law the idea that power can be abused and that, therefore, there should always be a burden on the state to prove things. Citizens did not have to go around proving their existence or allowing their status to be challenged. What is interesting about that is that it created the spirit of the British character and is why I believe that we never surrendered to totalitarianism in any form.
	In this country we have not had sufficient debate about the implications of the Bill for the relationship between the citizen and the state. The state is there at our behest. The citizen is not there at the behest of the state. That is what is not understood by the Government, I am afraid, in creating this change, which came about unfortunately because of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred to—that those who are involved in the incredible business of new technology can become excited about it. I know that from my own field—I chair the Human Genetics Commission. It is very easy for those involved to say, "We can do this", and persuade people that because you can do something you should do it. This is one of those areas where the Government were persuaded that because this could be done technologically, it should be done. That is a serious error.
	Let us look for a minute at voluntarism and compulsion. I take the view, as do others, that we are seeing compulsion introduced by the back door. I am not making the interpretation as a lawyer would, but I would easily be able to persuade a jury that my party's manifesto said that ID cards would be voluntary and that there would be legislation before they could be introduced on a compulsory basis. That is what the majority of people who read that manifesto would have taken from it.
	In this new method of acquiring the card, we are seeing compulsion, because if I apply for a new passport, which I am due to in a couple of years, I will be required to have an identity card—and I do not want one. There will be no opportunity for me to say that I do not want that additional element. I happen to believe that the new, upgraded passport is a good thing. I have no objection to the improvement in a passport that contains new material, but I object to an internal passport in our country, in our nation. We should be deeply concerned about that.
	By designating documents such as a passport, a driving licence or the check certificate that people have to obtain from the Criminal Records Bureau for certain jobs, the Home Office will be able to force more than 95 per cent of the population on to the national identity register. Let us not pretend that there is no compulsion and that it was not referred to in the manifesto. If I want to travel abroad, drive my car or keep my job, you can be sure that I will have no choice.
	That is not the way to legislate and that is why this amendment is right and absolutely does not offend against the Salisbury convention—and it is the duty of this House, in its care for the rule of law, the common law and the traditions of our nation, to take exception to the compulsory nature of these cards.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, those who have just heard that speech and the previous speech by the noble Lord, Lord Gould, will have noted where the weight of argument lay. As always, the noble Baroness spoke with great effectiveness and she eliminated the arguments of her noble friend—although they had already been eliminated in the other place by a supporter of the Bill, his right honourable friend, Mr Denham, in the Home Affairs Select Committee. On this occasion, having taken part throughout the Committee stage, I need to say very little following the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who dealt effectively with voluntarism, and the very important speech on the Salisbury convention by my noble friend Lady Anelay.
	However, one other point was touched on briefly during an earlier speech—that is, the way in which the Government are rolling out this project on a manageable basis. One argument advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was that this was all very important from a security point of view for the maintenance of law and order. If it were important for that reason, we would not have to wait for the manageable roll-out as people applied for passports over the next few years. That demolishes the argument that there is any urgency or significance in the move to this project. If the Government really believed that it was vital for security, they would not be talking about a manageable roll-out as people reapplied for passports; they would be saying that we must get on with it.
	Finally, I return to the point made in another place by Mr McNulty, the Minister responsible for immigration, citizenship and nationality, when he emphasised that the most important element of the programme was the database that stands behind the card. We talk about what the public believe and whether they support this measure in terms of the possible help they think may occasionally be provided if they can present a card to identify themselves. But I think that very few of them are aware of the significance of the database, the access that will be available to it by many bodies or the fact that it provides a route to a whole range of other government databases. It is not a single database; we are providing a considerable number of doors to the whole range of government databases, and that is why this measure is of such significance.
	Mr McNulty, in a rather curious comment during his speech in which he conceded the important point that there must be legislation before we move to Clauses 6 and 7, in which we now are to have legislation before we have compulsion—another great victory for this House—said:
	"as we move towards flicking the switch for compulsion through primary legislation".
	I repeat: flicking the switch for compulsion. He went on to say that, by then, there would be a,
	"relatively small number of people who had not registered for and obtained a card".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/06; col. 1151.]
	So we are to have legislation for a relatively small number of people—Mr McNulty said that it would probably be less than 20 per cent—and we are to have creeping compulsion for the 80 per cent who require a passport and who do not believe that the need for a passport is voluntary but compulsory. Therefore, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. His speech provided an overwhelming argument for this House to support his amendment, and I hope that it will do so.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I want to pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, who I know has a distinguished background in business as well as in politics. With the complex technology that we are discussing here and the systems that will have to be put in place to support it, surely an assumed introduction date of 2009 is not a long timescale. In order to procure the correct technology at the right prices, I would argue that three years is quite a reasonable period. Perhaps, subsequently, it could be accelerated. I imagine that the Government are looking at the middle of the decade, say, 2014 or 2015, before the compulsory introduction of cards. Perhaps that could be foreshortened, depending on the success of the technology.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about two different things. He is right to say that we may need a certain amount of time to introduce what he describes as complex technology. Incidentally, the Government keep telling us that the technology is extremely simple and that the Passport Service is doing it anyway. The introduction of the technology is not what accounts for most of the delay but it is only when people apply for new passports, because their present passports have expired, that they will be forced down that route. It has nothing to do with a delay because it is desirable to hold things up while the technology is tested; they have chosen a route that depends entirely on the pace at which current passports expire.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, surely it could be argued that, if the introduction of the new technology comes in about 2009, one is looking for a phased introduction as well as the ability to try to get the best deals for the Government to save money through the procurement process. A phased introduction will make it much easier to manage that process. We have all seen the problems that the Government have experienced with IT in the past. If we consider the phased introduction until the middle of the next decade, that would avoid the problems of attempting to go for tens of millions of identity cards being produced in some kind of big bang around 2014 or 2015.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is missing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Over and over again, we have been told that the introduction of these cards is very important for state security and, therefore, there must be some degree of urgency about it. I believe that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was making. If it is so urgent, why are we to have a rolling programme?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I believe it is because the Government imagine that it is the most practical way forward. If it is the most practical way forward—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, if there are easier ways of doing it, I would be very interested to hear how the Opposition would advance that process. I know that in the past, under Michael Howard, they suggested that the introduction of identity cards could be related to driving licences. If we are trying to introduce this as quickly and as practically as possible, that process would not be helped by an amendment that undermines the basis for many years in the future of any workable system. Politically, it may be quite potent to argue that this is what one should do, but in practical terms the adoption of the amendment would not speed the introduction of the system or make it more cost efficient.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, let us hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am not a member of the Labour Party and I am not a member of the Government. I am an individual, independent Labour Peer. I am entitled to my say, as I have been throughout the passage of this Bill. I shall not say a great deal, but I very much agree with the amendment moved so ably and comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Of course, I shall support it in the Division Lobby. However, I repeat—I believe it should be repeated several times by every democrat—that a national identity register and compulsory ID cards are tools, not of a democratic state, but of nasty dictators and totalitarian states. That is my main objection to it. Indeed, throughout the almost 54 years for which I was a member of the Labour Party, that was its view as well. It was frightened of compulsory identity checks and cards because it believed that they were useful to nasty dictators. Under this new Labour Government, we are increasingly finding that, rather than the state being the servant of the individual and society, the individual is becoming the servant of the state. The Government are following a dangerous road, and this Bill is part of it.
	The Government's position on manifesto commitments is simply not sustainable. One day we hear that manifesto commitments are sacrosanct, as we heard when we were discussing Commons amendments to the Terrorism Bill on glorification of terrorism. The Minister informed us then that it would be wrong for the Lords to reject the Commons amendment. However, on the Health Bill we found that the Government decided that they could overrule the manifesto commitment on smoking in public places. Instead of having smoking banned in certain restaurants, pubs and private clubs, there was a total ban. On that occasion, the Government said that the manifesto commitment was not sacrosanct. Today, the Government are using their manifesto commitment as an excuse for this House to accept the Commons amendments, but the manifesto commitment has again been altered. They cannot have it both ways.
	The noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brookwood, who is a great supporter and protector of the Government, wonders at the arrangement which the Tories, according to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, have made with the Liberal Democrats. That is increasingly so. It is the fault of the Government. The anti-democratic policies followed in one Bill after another by a Labour Government are forcing the Tories and Liberal Democrats together to defend freedoms, individual rights and the democratic way in which this country is governed, as it has been for many hundreds of years.
	That is the lesson that the Labour Party ought to learn. They ought to look at themselves. I can say that, because I served in the Labour Party for far more years—and more effectively, from a socialist point of view—than many of those sitting on the government Benches. I wish, hope and pray that we will have a Labour Party such as the one which used to believe in individual freedom.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly say why the British population keep consistently returning a Labour government?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is not a very good argument: they keep returning a Labour government because of the share-out of the electorate in various constituencies. If they are claiming a mandate, they should remember that only 20 per cent of the electorate voted for them at the last election. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats combined accounted for 60 per cent as against the 37 per cent which was gained by the Labour Party at the election. So the noble Lord should think about that as well. Although the Government have a majority, they certainly do not have a mandate for this Bill and they certainly do not have a mandate for a compulsory element which they are seeking to force on this House and the country.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am awfully pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, spoke before me because he spoke from his heart and with a knowledge of ancient British liberties. When I heard the noble Baroness advance all the arguments of what we were going to have to do I tried to forget that I was among a lot of people whom I respect and an even larger number of people whom I like on all sides of this House. I tried to forget that I was in one of the most splendid architectural buildings in Europe, and I tried to picture the noble Baroness setting out all the things that we have got to do—the identity cards, the fingerprints, the iris scanning and the compulsory register—and I imagined her not dressed as smartly as she is now and not with the lovely face which we have all come to admire and like, but in a drab room wearing a uniform which we have all come to hate. That is when the words of what she was saying really cast a chill into my soul.
	I am sorry, but I am privileged beyond peradventure to be in your Lordships' House. I care passionately about the liberties of every single one of us and every single one of her Majesty's subjects and compulsory education—sorry, identity cards.

Noble Lords: Oh!

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is always fun to watch people laugh at your jokes and especially fun to watch them laugh when they know that you are right and they cannot think of another answer. Compulsory identity cards go so against our ancient liberties that I will support enthusiastically the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question, while on the subject of ancient liberties. As he knows, I was born in Woking. When the noble Earl's family owned Woking, how much liberty would I have had in those ancient times?

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, you would have had—as you would have had since Anglo-Saxon times—equality before the law. That was the great benefit of common law. I give a tiny history lesson: the reason we had a common tax was because the Anglo-Saxon kings created a united kingdom of England where the law was the same everywhere, where everybody paid tax and where there was no tax privilege. When my forebear, very unwisely, sold the whole of Woking for 5 shillings an acre and thought he had a good deal, the noble Lord would still have had the same rights in front of the law as did his forebears, for which I am proud and I hope he is proud as well.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I am not sure how you follow that, but I shall certainly not follow the noble Earl down the Anglo-Saxon route. I would like, however, to join in the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I had the privilege—I mean that; it was a privilege—of serving with him on the Joint Committee on the Charities Bill. On that committee, I learnt that he goes into his arguments very carefully and puts them very eloquently and forcefully. Sometimes he is right and sometimes he is wrong. On the Charities Bill, sometimes he was right and we agreed; and sometimes he was wrong.
	I think the noble Lord is wrong today. He argued very eloquently and I listened carefully to him. I do not think that he is arguing about voluntary versus compulsory. I think his argument was meant to be a demolition of the whole idea of identity cards. Day by day, sitting by sitting, in Committee he and his colleagues have been undermining the whole Bill bit by bit. When I ask people about identity cards, even those who are violently against them say, "I am against them. But if we have identity cards, there would be no sense in having them as voluntary; they must be compulsory to have any effect". They argue that very strongly.
	I do find the thinking of the Liberals awfully woolly from time to time—I shall come back to that. But I can understand why they are pursuing this argument here. What I do not understand—my noble friend Lord Gould raised this—is why the Tories have joined that unholy alliance. We have former Cabinet Ministers who, if they were still in power—if I dare say so to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, if he were still Home Secretary—would be arguing the case eloquently and powerfully for the introduction of identity cards. Former Home Secretaries, former Foreign Secretaries and, indeed, the former Prime Minister, who is here, would be pushing strongly for the introduction of identity cards.
	Again and again, the Government are asked when there is a breach of security: what is being done about it? When there are terrorist acts, they are asked: what is being done about it? Those questions are asked by the Liberals and by the Tories but, when the Government bring forward measures to tackle security or terrorism, they do not get the support, in particular, of the Liberal Democrats.
	Again and again, when there is social security fraud, people from the Opposition Benches say: what will be done about it? What action will be taken? When the Government bring forth legislation to deal with it, no support is forthcoming. There are many other examples that I could cite. So I hope that some Conservatives, at least, will realise that if they were in government, they would understand the argument and bring forward the kind of responsible legislation to deal with those problems that the Government propose today.
	Finally, I say to my noble friend—I think I may still call her my noble friend—Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who sat down to huge cheers from the Liberal Democrats and the Tories, that I look forward to the day when I sit here and hear her support the Government, which she is supposed to have been brought here to support.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I think I am young enough to see that day come one day.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I happily support my Government when they are being a truly social democratic government, committed to liberty as well as the socialist ideals that I understood were the party's founding values.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I naturally and strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and my noble friends on the Front Bench have said, but what has concerned me and still does is that in creating the Bill, we are creating a database. It is the database and its future implications that we all fear as a threat to liberty. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, spoke up for England, to use an old phrase, when she said that it threatens our ancient liberties. That is what we are here to defend and it is the database and its possible use not only by this Government but by others that causes me deep anxiety. We must be very, very careful not to bring on ourselves a system that cannot but be fascist, in the end.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I shall speak briefly against the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, was absolutely right to centre on the fact that this Bill is about a database. The constant appeals to our ancient past must be put into context, because technology has changed our world. Information technology is capable of manipulating databases. They exist; we are all part of them. I support this Bill because it recognises that it is better to have a proper national database that is secure and has the right safeguards than the many others all around.
	If the amendment is passed, we would have a voluntary national identity register and a compulsory Passport Agency database. As I understand it, we will over time be introducing biometric passports with full biometric features, unless the new alliance of Liberals and Conservatives frustrate that intention of the Government. In creating those passports, we will create an associated database that will have information about individuals. It will have biometric information about them and information about how they proved that they were those individuals. The Passport Agency would be derelict in its duty if it did not use the modern technology available to it to mine that database to ensure that multiple passports were not issued and to ensure that the security of the passports issued was as good as possible.
	In practice, the new passport database will be become indistinguishable from the national identity register. The only major difference will be the lack of safeguards that the national identity register will have. I shall oppose this amendment because I believe it is right to have a national identity register and that every passport holder should become part of it, and that it is the most secure way to the future for our citizens.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. I am delighted that I gave way to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe because he has outlined an argument that is powerful indeed. Much of the debate has, if I may respectfully say so, been predicated on a false premise. My noble friend is absolutely right; the criteria that will apply to the new biometric passports are very similar to the requirements that will apply to the ID card. I say that because it is very important for us to hold that at the forefront of our minds. When we debated this issue last, it was pointed out that passports are not, of course, voluntary in the sense that you can have one whenever you want and with whatever information on it that you provide, and it was suggested that it was therefore nonsense to say that someone could pick or choose this first stage.
	We need to be clear that there are at the moment regulations and requirements governing the sort of information that one is obliged to give if one wishes to receive the benefit of a passport. It may therefore be right at this stage, just so that we consider the practicalities of it, to remind the House where the differences are. One must provide one's name, one's date and place of birth and one's address for both the national identity register and the UK database. The address held on the UK passport database is the one that is given on the application form. It is not suggested that the names and address of one's parents and their dates of birth should be provided on the proposed national identity register. At present, however, we do have to give that information if we want a passport.
	Under the proposed national identity register, there will be a unique personal number. There is no such unique personal number, but the passport is a document which has a number attached to it. For ID cards, we will have to provide our national insurance number, which we do not currently give for the passport. If one looks at the remaining provisions—name and details of a countersignatory, validation information, sex, photograph, digitised signature, validity dates, employment status, and so on—the only difference is that employment status will be provided in the proposed national identity register, and not provided in the UK database. So my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe—perhaps I may finish this sentence—is right to say that the UK Passport Service will be obliged to keep that information on a database.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, who has the right, without my knowledge, to inspect an entry relating to me on the UK passport database?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no one has that right, save and except the provisions which currently apply to security and other measures that are currently reflected for passports and the UK identity scheme. If noble Lords had their way, we would have the burden of the new system brought in by technology but we would not have the benefits. The benefits that we have put address the issues which have been properly raised by a number of my noble friends, not least my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who I will for ever see as one of the most fast friends that I have. But, on this issue, we do not agree—for this reason. My noble friend said, and rightly so, that she has no objection to the improvements made on biometric passports. She fears the improper use of the database.
	I have to say to my noble friend that we fear it too, which is why we have put in the safeguards to make sure that there is an audit trail, a monitor and a commissioner. All those things do not currently prevail in relation to the UK passport database. We believe that we are making a step change which has to be addressed. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says about the Salisbury convention. I do not agree for this reason: the Salisbury convention is not about semantics; it is about the essence of what was provided. When this matter went before the other place, the whole Bill went through and was approved in the form in which it was subsequently reintroduced. We made it plain that the Bill that would come back to this place and the other place after the election, if the electorate was so wise as to reinstate us, would be the same Bill. That is the background.
	I shall remind the noble Baroness of what was said by the commission when it reviewed the whole working of the Salisbury convention. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who stands in high regard in this House, said that the commission's report stated at Recommendation 7:
	"The principles underlying the 'Salisbury Convention' remain valid and should be maintained. A version of the 'mandate' doctrine should continue to be observed: where the electorate has chosen a party to form a Government, the elements of that party's general election manifesto should be respected by the second chamber. More generally, the second chamber should be cautious about challenging the clearly expressed views of the House of Commons on any public policy issue. It is not possible to reduce this to a simple formula, particularly one based on manifesto commitments".
	Let us be clear. We went to the electorate. We said, "We want ID cards". It will be a compulsory scheme in the long term.
	The whole point of the word "initially" is that in the first place it will be. Let us be frank: people have constantly in this House made reference to primary legislation. It may have escaped your Lordships, but this is primary legislation. We are considering not secondary legislation, but primary legislation, which the Government have done well.
	In relation to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, we are as conscious of our history as any. On the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I hope that I have reassured him that we do want a fair, just, proportionate and non-discriminatory procedure. We are doing that in a way that will enable us to introduce it incrementally, as was made clear by my noble friend Lord Macdonald. It is also the most efficacious way. On the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, we have made an incremental provision for the roll-out. The new local passport offices will start to open in October 2006. It is not yet possible to announce their precise locations as the availability of premises has yet to be finalised. However, there will be a balanced spread of offices throughout the United Kingdom in major towns and cities. Staff are being recruited and trained now and will be fully trained before the first of the offices opens in October. The programme is well under way and, it is hoped, will make full provision.
	We have come to the time when I respectfully suggest that this House should give way. We have debated this again and again. From the very start it was always our intention that the roll-out of passports should be the vehicle with which we would start the process towards a compulsory scheme. There has been no duplicity about it, and no misunderstanding. I accept absolutely that noble Lords opposite wish to take advantage of a perceived infelicitous point of drafting in our manifesto, but in reality that is all it is.
	It has been said that this has forced noble Lords opposite into an alliance. However, of course we are the Government and they are the Opposition; that is part of their function. But I hope that, in opposing, noble Lords will put the needs of this country first. We believe that it will inure to this country's advantage to have the procedures in place. I simply remind noble Lords that a number of practitioners in the field, not least those charged with our security provision,have made it clear that they see this as a major advantage. The present and previous Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police support it; the Association of Chief Police Officers supports it, as does the head of the Security Service, Eliza Manningham-Buller. Other supporters include Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, France's top counter-terror investigator, who stated that identity cards will help Britain to protect itself against attacks by al-Qaeda and other sympathisers.
	We are not alone among common law countries to use this. Identity cards exist in common law countries such as Cyprus, Malaysia and Singapore. Equally, national population registers or ID cards are used in countries such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark—those are hardly totalitarian states. Somehow to imply that identity cards will suddenly change our way of life or who we are as British citizens is to do a disservice to the British character.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the many noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a vigorous and illuminating debate. Perhaps I may first put the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Gould, at rest: the love affair between the Liberal Party and the Tory Party is extraordinarily pragmatic. He can rest assured that if and when we consider the Government are doing the right thing, we will as always support them in the Lobbies. It is as simple as that. Further to the noble Lord, Lord Gould, who was very kind in his remarks, he did say that Members on this side, particularly on my part, have engaged in a wrecking procedure on the Bill. I am sorry; I am addressing the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, not the noble Lord, Lord Gould. I refer him to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, made at the end of the debate. He said that Members on these Benches had introduced more positive and improving changes to the Bill than anyone else in the House. Something like 65 amendments have been accepted by the Government. An equal number of them came from these Benches. There is no desire to wreck the Bill but there is a passionate desire—passion is dangerous if you are legislating—to see this as a voluntary scheme for all the reasons that have been enunciated in opening the debate and have been reinforced by Members of this House contributing to it.
	The amount of information to be part of the database which is behind this ID card scheme takes 135 pages of legislation to describe—three and a half pages of Schedule 1. It goes considerably further than anything required by the Passport Office or any other department of state. It is the database, particularly the audit trail, that we object to so strongly. We would accept a simple, straightforward ID card shorn of this immense database, but not otherwise.
	We do not believe that this is a minor matter. In accordance with the Salisbury convention and the noble Baroness's explanation of it, we are being cautious in our challenge. We have abandoned all the issues that were thrown back at us by the Commons, bar this one. We are not simply digging our heels in. We believe—and others have spoken more effectively than I have—that this is an issue of major long-term cultural and practical importance to this House.
	To those who say, "What about security?", we say that the funds that are likely to be expended on this uniquely grandiose scheme could be better spent in other directions. They could be better utilised and without the risk to the public relationship with the police and security officers that this scheme will involve.
	Whether the scheme should be voluntary or not has been argued ad nauseam, and I do not propose to add to the argument. But I feel that your Lordships want this matter tested; therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (D1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 227; Not-Contents, 166.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
	Motion E
	21 Clause 8, page 7, line 28, leave out "or is subject to compulsory registration"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment, but propose Amendment No. 21A in lieu—
	21A Page 37, line 34, leave out from "required" to end of line 35 and insert "to be entered in the Register in accordance with an obligation imposed by an Act of Parliament passed after the passing of this Act."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 21 and do agree to Amendment No. 21A proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.
	I should explain that the Government decided in the other place not to seek to reverse Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, which have now removed Clauses 6 and 7 from the Bill on compulsory registration and on the super-affirmative resolution procedure for bringing in compulsory registration through secondary legislation. Those clauses dealt with the requirement to register and to be issued with an identity card in the second stage of the identity card scheme, and for compulsion to be brought into effect by way of secondary legislation made under this Bill and subject to the super-affirmative procedure.
	The Government have accepted the view of your Lordships' House on those clauses, which have now been dropped. The Government have listened carefully to the points raised in both Houses. We have always said that this is designed to be a compulsory scheme, and it still is. We have always made it clear that compulsion will apply in the second stage of the scheme. The final move to compulsion will be when all United Kingdom residents aged 16 or over will be required to have an identity card with civil financial penalties for failure to register and be issued with an identity card. We have always been clear that that second compulsory stage will require a vote in both Houses.
	Our original proposal was for a type of secondary legislation known as the super-affirmative procedure, but we now accept that the use of secondary legislation in this way does not seem to have found favour, despite receiving approval from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on this Bill. We have therefore decided that fresh primary legislation will be the best way of moving to the second compulsory phase of the identity cards scheme. We have not set a precise timetable for moving to compulsion because that will depend on a number of factors, including the speed of rollout of the initial phase of the scheme, when we intend that the issue of identity cards will be linked to the renewal of passports and immigration documents.
	Moving to compulsion by the use of primary legislation rather than using the super-affirmative order route need not make any great difference to the timetable, however. Even though Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill have now been dropped, there will remain numerous references to compulsion in the Bill. In particular, Clause 9 remains, which provides for the issue of identity cards to those people who are subject to compulsory registration; Clause 15, on identity checks for public services; and Clause 18, on the safeguards prohibiting an identity card being required as the sole proof of identity in advance of compulsion, although it contains provisions relating to the position after compulsory registration. That is why the Government propose Amendment No. 21A to clarify in Clause 43 that the definition of, "subject to compulsory registration" now means required,
	"to be entered in the Register in accordance with an obligation imposed by an Act of Parliament passed after the passing of this Act".
	That means that any references in the Bill to "compulsory registration" now relate to compulsion imposed in future primary legislation.
	Amendment No. 21, which the Motion disagrees with, would remove a consequential reference in Clause 8 to issuing an identity card to someone who is subject to compulsory registration. While this will have no effect until the further primary legislation referred to in Amendment No. 21A is in place, as I have made clear the ultimate intention is for there to be a compulsory scheme and so it would make sense for this reference to remain in Clause 8.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 21 and do agree to Amendment No. 21A proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support government Motion E—the first government Motion I have supported today. I accept that it is a very reasonable substitute for my Amendment No. 21. When I tabled it during earlier consideration of the Bill, when the main thrust of my argument was to leave out Clauses 6 and 7, I did so as a representative consequential amendment. At the time I appreciated that my resources in opposition were simply inadequate fully to list all the consequential amendments that might be needed. I certainly accept that the Government have found a much more elegant way of having a consequential amendment by introducing the new definition. It fully meets the needs that I had in seeking to remove Clauses 6 and 7. The Government's Motion does not in any way jeopardise the change made to the Bill by this House's acceptance of Motion D1, which retains Amendments Nos. 16 and 22. Therefore, I support the Government's Motion.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I have been in this House for only 43 years. When I first came here I was confused at all levels, but the longer I stayed here I found that I was confused at a higher and higher level until today. Today I am confused at the lowest level that I have ever been confused at in your Lordships' House, thanks in part to the wisdom of the noble Baroness opposite who has moved sideways, backwards and shifted from one sand to another.
	I hope that what I say may be of help because, as the noble Baroness knows, throughout I have believed in the passport and an identity card related to the passport and not related to anything else. For a brief moment she suggested that the passport might have had its day and that it would be useful only for travel. As she knows well, it has been confirmed to me in two Parliamentary Questions that the passport is the ultimate proof of identity worldwide. As I have been unable to obtain answers to questions I have asked the Government, I have done my own research among 18 of the 22 countries that are in the EEA. I have asked them what information they have at present and how they feel about the matter. The Minister said how delighted the French were that we were going to have identity cards. However, only a year ago they gave up all requirements for foreign residents to have an identity card. No green card is required in France. Other countries are following the same pattern as regards freedom of movement. The question, therefore, is, what is the purpose of an identity card if you have a passport? The only purpose is greater convenience. It is smaller and it allows you to travel within the EEA states. However, it does not allow you to travel anywhere else. It is not proof of your identity if you wish to cash a cheque. It is not acceptable to banks as proof of identity. It is acceptable as proof of identity only in enabling you to cross the frontier within those 22 states.
	Previously, I suggested to the noble Baroness that it was not necessary to make the identity card compulsory because, if it was worthwhile, people would have it. I would like one. If I can choose my own number that I can remember, can I have 00111? I would like one straightaway. We know that biometric passports are a good idea and that other countries are adopting them. They should have been rolled out in the United Kingdom in October 2005. When will they be rolled out? As we know, the biometric passport will not have five or 10 fingerprints, it will have limited information. No one who does not have a reader will be able to tell who the person is other than from the photograph. The biometric aspect of that is of value only to those who can read it. As I have said before, I would like to have as much information as I possibly can on my identity card, but I do not want the Government to have any because it is my information.
	A rather interesting point is beginning to come up. As the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, pointed out recently, all the countries have different requirements. I have already pointed out that the Germans found it impossible to accept what we are proposing because their data protection Act effectively forbids it. Foreigners in this country should after 90 days—and that means anyone who has a job over here because they will have a job for more than 90 days—supposedly compulsorily register at some time in the future and must have certain information on their card to prove their identity, but to whom? They will already have got into the country. The noble Baroness was kind enough to answer the question that one thing they will not have on their identity card is their nationality. That is totally incomprehensible. If a foreigner is over here, the first thing you want to know is what his nationality is. My confusion goes further. The noble Baroness said today that there will be one identity card linked to the passport—certainly at this stage. There will not be one linked to the driving licence and so on. Will she confirm—as she said once in Committee—that there will be only one identity card, that it will be a biometric identity card linked to a biometric passport and that it will be voluntary?
	As the noble Baroness pointed out, although 80 per cent of people in this country have passports and 4 million are issued each year, it does not take someone to do a cheap crossword to work out how long the process will take. But as we have almost more passports per capita than any other country in the world, we are nearly there. By my calculations 92 per cent of people who will travel, or would like to travel, already have passports. The older people who decide that they do not want to travel will not be in the same position as people in the continental countries which have an identity card that enables them to travel to neighbouring countries.
	I again find it unnecessary to do anything more than point out that this measure could easily be voluntary. It could be sold to people. This morning when I arrived at an airport to travel to this House, I found for the first time that my right finger, having not worked too hard in the garden, let me jump the queue. I put my card in a slot. Of the 120 people queuing, there were only two in my short queue. That was great. The card does not cost me anything; I have it because I am a regular traveller. The whole concept of biometrics is not of concern; the compulsion aspect is. The Minister kindly acknowledged that it will be some time before the primary legislation is introduced to make the measure compulsory. Therefore, there will be a consultation period. We could consider that the whole idea of having an identity register in addition to the Passport Office and the identity card is a complete and utter waste of time. What will the identity card do? It will not be acceptable to security services or to anyone in a shop.
	It is strange that although your driving licence is meant to be proof of identity, it is not. It is pretty difficult to see anyway. So, in general, it is not acceptable as proof of identity. Nor, for example, are any of your credit cards acceptable as proof of identity. Should you wish to purchase something in one country or another, in many of them the only proof of identity that is acceptable is your passport. The identity card is not proof of identity, for example, for the purchase of a car in Germany. How can we so enhance the identity card to give it a real value rather than just convenience?
	We raised many of these points at Second Reading when other people did not listen to them. One of the problems we face is that the public at large—if you can call them that—have not understood that this Bill is mainly about an identity register. They are not opposed to the principle of having identity cards provided they will be helpful. I do not think that people are too opposed to the fingerprint concept. Already I find that with my parliamentary iPac rather than trying to remember the number—which was the date of Napoleon's death, but I have forgotten exactly when he died—I can use my fingerprint for identity purposes.
	Will the Minister confirm that we are to have only one identity card at this stage? Could it please be voluntary? What will we do about the foreigner who wants to come here? Will we insist that he should have an identity card? I think the noble Baroness may find that that would put off a lot of people considering longer term employment over here. There is a real concern about the dishing out of data and a belief of some in perfide Albion that effectively we are in league with the United States and that information will run from one country to another. As the Minister knows, in Switzerland, Germany and four other countries the transfer of data to third parties, or even to different parties within government, is not possible.
	I sense that the Minister has shifted her ground very much, in a very charming way. I am very pleased that she lost the vote; it was quite right that she should do, because the voluntary method is better than anything else. As I was driving through the storms in Europe last week, I suddenly thought to myself, "Goodness me, why am I thinking of nationalisation?" That was one of the first things that I opposed in your Lordships' House, from this very place; it was on shipbuilding. I thought, "You know what this Bill is doing? It is stealing my nationality. It is nationalising the British people". It is taking the data away from me and not letting me know what I have got, because I would not be able to remember it anyway. I can still remember Sloane 1234, which I think was the telephone number for Harrods, but I cannot remember more than three or four numbers at a time. As for alpha-numeric combinations, they are pretty difficult.
	I am not being anti-anything; I would simply like the Minister to confirm that we will have only one identity card for the foreseeable future, that the card will be linked to the passport and that there will be no need to have a central identity register until some time in the future.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, knows, we have debated many of these issues on a number of occasions, not least when the matter was raised on 23 January. I look in particular to the debate on that day that starts at col. 1007 in Hansard. At one stage there was a misunderstanding between us about what was going to be on the card. There was one identity card, if the noble Lord remembers, but then there was the residence permit. I confirm that the nationality will be on the residence permit of a foreign national, which will serve as that person's identity card. The person's nationality will be on the residence permit. I know that there was confusion in the past.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me. On 15 November 2005, she said:
	"I thank the noble Lord. The truth is that EU citizens do not have to surrender their own national cards when they come here. However, they will be eligible for a UK card if they are resident here, but it will not show nationality".—[Official Report, 15/11/05; col. 1008.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is a correct recitation of what was said but, if the noble Lord remembers, either there was a letter or we spoke later to make the distinction between the residence permit and the identity card. The foreign national will apply for a residence permit and their nationality will be on that card. If I have misled the noble Lord or the House in that regard and if there has been any confusion, I am happy to have had this opportunity to clarify the matter. I thought that we had had an exchange of correspondence, but I will check that and, if I am wrong, I apologise.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am sorry to persist, but many people have asked me this, particularly some friends on the Continent. The Minister went on:
	"They will have an ID card that they can use; it will identify them and it will have the ability to contain their addresses but it will not show their nationality".—[Official Report, 15/11/05; col. 1008.]

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I may be able to clarify this—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I remind the House of what stage we are at in the Bill. It may be appropriate, bearing in mind the interchange that we are having, if I write to the noble Lord, as it seems to me that this does not necessarily spring from the amendment that we are considering; it goes more broadly. I would be happy to write on this. It may be necessary for me to track through what has been said so that, if I have unintentionally misled or confused the House, I can clarify the situation with greater precision. It might be easier to do it that way than from the Dispatch Box. I ask the forgiveness of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in advance, in the event that I have inadvertently misled or confused him in a way that I should not have done.
	The noble Lord also asked what we will use the card for. We will be able to use the cards to prove our identity. If the card becomes of high quality and if it is generally recognised, it will be used more and more as a means of proving identity. When we spoke about the earlier amendment, I made the point that as the utility of the identity card is enhanced—the convenience that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred to—it is likely that the card will take primacy, particularly as a large volume of travel is within EEA countries. Therefore, the use of the passport, which is needed for travel to countries outside the EEA, will be a matter of balance and consideration.
	The noble Lord is right that the group of people—other than those who are in the third age—who do not tend to use passports are those in the lowest economic strata of society and who lack the financial ability to travel as many of us do. That category of people needs to have proper provision. British citizens will find that this document will become more and more useful and more and more accessible. We have already dealt with why we think the specific linking of the passport to the identity card makes sense, for cost and for all the other reasons that we have set out. This House has spoken, asking the other place to think again. I am sure that the other place will think again and that, having thought again, it will express its voice even more clearly. Next time, maybe this House will have ears to hear it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Motion F
	47 Clause 24, page 21, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) There shall be a Commissioner appointed by Her Majesty."
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	47A Because it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to appoint the National Identity Scheme Commissioner and to receive his reports
	48 Page 21, line 14, leave out "Secretary of State must appoint a Commissioner to" and insert "Commissioner shall"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	48A Because it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to appoint the National Identity Scheme Commissioner and to receive his reports
	50 Clause 25, page 22, line 16, leave out "make a report to the Secretary of State" and insert "lay before each House of Parliament a general report"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	50A Because it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to appoint the National Identity Scheme Commissioner and to receive his reports
	51 Page 22, line 18, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
	"( ) The Commissioner may also, at any time, lay before Parliament such other reports on any matter relating to the carrying out of those functions as the Commissioner sees fit.
	( ) If it appears to the Commissioner, after consultation with the Secretary of State, that the publication of a particular matter contained in a report under this section would be prejudicial to—
	(a) national security, or
	(b) the prevention or detection of crime,
	the Commissioner must exclude that matter from the copy of the report that he lays before Parliament.
	( ) Where the Commissioner excludes from publication any matter under the provisions of this section, he must make a report on that matter to the Secretary of State."
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	51A Because it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to appoint the National Identity Scheme Commissioner and to receive his reports

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 50 and 51, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 47A, 48A, 50A and 51A.
	Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 would have the effect that the National Identity Scheme Commissioner would be appointed by Her Majesty rather than by the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will be aware that to a certain extent this is a presentational issue. There will be very little difference in practical terms whether the National Identity Scheme Commissioner is appointed by Her Majesty or by the Secretary of State.
	There are a variety of different statutory commissioners; some are appointed by Her Majesty, some are appointed by the Prime Minister and some are appointed by the Secretary of State. An example of a commissioner who is appointed by the Secretary of State is the Immigration Services Commissioner, whose general duty is to promote good practice on the part of those who provide immigration advice. Of the commissioners who are appointed by Her Majesty, there are those, such as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, who nevertheless report to the Secretary of State. As the House will be aware, the Police and Justice Bill merges those two inspectorates and a number of others into Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody, who will report to the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General.
	It is therefore clear that, as a general rule, statutory commissioners report to a relevant Minister or Ministers. That is the case regardless of the mechanism of their appointment. The Information Commissioner is an exception. He is appointed by Her Majesty by Letters Patent, is a corporation sole and reports directly to Parliament. It is appropriate for the National Identity Scheme Commissioner to be appointed by the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State will have ultimate responsibility for the effective and efficient operation of the identity cards agency and it is right therefore that the commissioner should report to and be appointed by the Secretary of State. I assure the House that the appointment of the National Identity Scheme Commissioner will follow the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments rules and code of practice, as well as Home Office guidance on public appointments made by Ministers.
	Amendment No. 50 would result in the commissioner reporting directly to Parliament rather than to the Secretary of State, who would then lay the reports before Parliament. Amendment No. 51 would have the effect that the commissioner, not the Secretary of State, would have the final say over which matters would be excluded from his reports on the basis that publication would be prejudicial to national security or to the prevention or detection of crime. We consider it necessary for the commissioner's report to be addressed to the Secretary of State, and for the Secretary of State—albeit in consultation with the commissioner—to remain responsible for determining which parts of the reports should be excluded before they are laid before Parliament. Noble Lords will be aware that there are precedents for the removal of sensitive aspects of reports of statutory commissioners before they are laid before Parliament. For example, similar mechanisms apply in relation to the Surveillance Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Commissioner, and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. It is our view that Clause 25 of the Bill contains adequate safeguards to ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of the commissioner's reports. All reports prepared by the commissioner will be laid before Parliament.
	In addition, there are only two reasons why matters may be excluded from the report that is laid before Parliament—if the publication of the material would be prejudicial to national security or to the prevention and detection of crime. It is important to understand that, simply because a matter has been excluded from one report, it does not follow that the information will never be made public. If, for example, a matter was excluded due to an ongoing criminal investigation, once that matter was concluded there would be no reason why it could not appear in any subsequent reports.
	I simply do not think that the commissioner is the right person to make the decision about what should be excluded from his report. The Secretary of State, by virtue of his overarching responsibility, has a thorough overview of issues affecting national security and the prevention and detection of crime. For the amendment to be workable—that is to say, for the National Identity Scheme Commissioner to be capable of making an informed decision about what should and should not be excluded from the report—he would have to be briefed on national security and crime in the way that the Secretary of State is. Aside from being a disproportionate way of ensuring that certain sensitive information does not get into the public domain, that would significantly change the nature of the commissioner's role.
	Noble Lords will be aware that these amendments were disagreed to in the other place. These amendments were put to the vote and the will of the elected House was that they should not be accepted. We therefore believe that this House should accept the views of the other place and not press the Motion to a Division. I therefore ask noble Lords not to insist on amendments Nos. 47, 48, 50 and 51. I hope, however, that noble Lords will feel that those amendments have served a useful purpose, because we have been able to debate them and to look carefully at how the commissioner will operate. That has meant that we have a greater degree of understanding and expectation of how the whole system will work. I hope that that will have reassured the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 50 and 51, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 47A, 48A, 50A and 51A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her full and clear justification of the maintenance of the Bill as it stood. She chastises one with such elegance and charm that it is almost impossible to realise that one has been thoroughly flogged and has got nothing out of it, but there we are; that is the way.
	I suppose that the only thing about which I still have a strong residual sense is the appointment of the commissioner. This is a singularly sensitive appointment. The commissioner will have to delve into the interstices of the Civil Service and will have to make some strong judgments about the discharge of the Home Secretary's responsibilities with regard to the registry and all its affairs. I therefore would have wished strongly for the appointment by the Crown to have been preserved, as the independence needs not only to be real but to be seen to be real. However, acting, as I believe that we have, with care and consideration for the primacy of the other place, we do not seek to oppose the proposals.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I rise because I moved Amendment No. 50, the one on reporting, on the earlier occasion. Like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I have listened with great care to the Minister's patient explanation as to why the reports should be given to the Secretary of State rather than direct to Parliament. She has repeated in some detail what she said on 19 December; indeed, she has elaborated on it a little today, saying that the Secretary of State has information about security matters on which it would be unreasonable to brief the commissioner in the same detail. She has emphasised that the Secretary of State will consult the commissioner about the matters to be excluded and that the exclusions are not necessarily final if the circumstances change. All that is helpful and, clearly, we are not really in a position to pursue the matter much further.
	I simply want to make two points. The Minister spoke about the will of the other House being expressed on this matter. I suppose, in a sense, that it was, although the matter was not debated at all. Because of the way in which these matters are dealt with in another place, with the imposition of timetables, the debate was on something completely different and the vote simply followed automatically. It is worth making that comment when we are dealing with the commissioner's relationship with Parliament. Many months ago, the Minister, in reply to a Select Committee, said that the primary job of the commissioner was to advise the Secretary of State. The last time that we debated this matter, I said that I believed that the primary job was to report to Parliament and to protect the citizen. That is why we moved our amendment. Although I understand that there are security grounds for doing it in the way that the Minister describes, the point needs to be made that the commissioner is there not to serve the purposes of the Secretary of State but to protect the citizen and to serve Parliament. Even though the other place did not think that this matter was worth discussion, or could not find time to discuss it, it seems to me to be the job of this House to ensure that the citizen is protected and that the role of Parliament is looked at closely.
	I am therefore somewhat regretful that we cannot pursue the matter further. I think that the point has been made, however, and I hope that the commissioner will recognise that the House has expressed the view that he should do his job with the principles that I have expressed in mind—the protection of the citizen and the duty of Parliament. I hope that his relationship with the Secretary of State will be very much guided by those principles.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, the Minister has offered some reassuring words, but I do not see how a proper check is being provided when the person who is supposed to be the check on the system is appointed by and reports to the person controlling at the top. It is a bit like having a corporate bank account with only one signature on it. No one would ever allow that to happen in business. You would be labelled as a total lunatic if you did it. I still have that feeling, and this self-certification and internal checking that has started to appear in many of the Bills that come to us from the Executive concerns me. We must remember that this scheme was first floated by the Home Office to a Conservative administration, although it did not get anywhere, and has been floated time and again.
	We must remember that Parliament is here to act as a check on the Executive. That is what Magna Carta was about, and we forget that at our peril. It may be said that the country effectively votes for an executive at the elections, but it is really voting for a slate in Parliament. We sometimes get confused when we think about exactly which hat the Executive is wearing when it sits in Parliament. When members of the Cabinet are in Parliament, they are sitting as legislators, the people who control the Executive. They sometimes forget that. We ought to maintain some of these checks, and it is with great regret that I see these amendments being turned down by the other place, which ought to know better.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I intervene only briefly. Being international, one of the sad things I face is that I tend to be one of the few representatives of the 13 million British subjects who live abroad. They have a certain concern about an identity register, and let us assume that the 13 million people who live abroad do have passports. Because of the current situation as regards the disclosure of information I have been asked to try to seek assurance that, if we are not to have an independent commissioner, the information will not be passed to foreign governments or others under any circumstances without the approval or knowledge of the person concerned. The Minister will know full well that we have many British subjects working in various difficult areas and territories where the rule of law is not absolute. It is just that sort of assurance that would be welcome. I should prefer the Bill to be as we amended it here but I accept that we are in a minority.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly hope that I can reassure noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that we have already taken all proper steps to ensure that only appropriate reference will be given to anyone under the Bill. We went through in extensive detail what those safeguards are and I think it would be invidious if I tried to abridge all of it. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that no disproportionate or improper use of that data will be permitted either within or outwith the jurisdiction.
	Of course I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, says about the benefits of a commissioner being otherwise appointed. I hope I made clear in my remarks supporting the Motion that the distinction between Her Majesty appointing and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or his successors in title supervising involves very little practical difference. I reassure the House that the appropriate scrutiny will be undertaken to ensure that what happens is proportionate and right.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

Report received.
	Clause 3 [Establishment]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) The Olympic Delivery Authority will be a non-departmental public body accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State."

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I open by thanking the Minister and, although they are not in their places, the Bill team for the considerable patience they have shown in Committee and in particular for the letters and the written follow-ups that I think we all have had.
	The purpose of my amendment to Clause 3 relates directly to one of the letters I have had and I think we all have had which starts:
	"We undertook to look again at the degree of control the Secretary of State has over the Olympic Delivery Authority".
	I am very content with what is in this document. The purpose of the amendment is to try to get at least a part or summary of it into Hansard for reference should it be needed at a much later stage. This will all be happening over many years to come and I should like as much clarity as possible on the face of the Bill, and that which I cannot get in the Bill I should like to have in Hansard. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for the way in which he moved the amendment and for his thanks to me and to the Bill team for the way in which we sought to respond to various issues that were raised in Committee and usefully considered afterwards. I hope that I can satisfy him on the points he makes. I realise that he wants in Hansard a very clear definition of the position of the Olympic Delivery Authority. I shall seek to re-emphasise that again.
	The ODA, as a non-departmental public body, is accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State. I do not think that it is necessary for that to be on the face of the Bill because, as I sought to explain in Committee, it is a classification rather than a legal definition and as such does not have a proper place in the Bill itself. However, it does help to clarify the nature of this non-departmental public body. It will be recognised that the term NDPB covers a wide range of institutions. This one, like others, indicates that it operates at arm's length from government. I think that that is the important point as regards the noble Lord's amendment. This arm's-length arrangement has already been put in place as regards the ODA and will be reflected in the financial memorandum and management statement being prepared in relation to it. Once the authority has been set up and the right structures and people put in place, the Government will let the ODA get on with doing the job of preparing for the games.
	It may be helpful to reassure noble Lords that, as I said in Committee, where the Bill provides the Secretary of State with powers of control over the ODA these are included only as a backstop and could not be exercised in a manner that allowed the DCMS to interfere with the management of the ODA on a daily basis. I sought to reassure noble Lords that what was suggested at one stage—that the Secretary of State might be interested in expenses claims from members of the ODA—was an indication of exactly how we do not intend the ODA to operate. We want it to be at arm's length from government and to have proper authority over all matters that are within its remit while nevertheless being responsible to the Secretary of State.
	We envisage that the expenditure threshold for the ODA will be set at about £20 million, subject to the Chief Secretary's agreement. That level should strike a balance between allowing the authority to get on with the job without day-to-day interference while still giving the Secretary of State oversight and accountability over very large projects, as the House and the other place would expect. In a similar way, a threshold will be agreed and set for staff salaries and other payments such as travel allowances. Only on rare occasions when payments are above the threshold would the authority need to refer to the DCMS, and that is likely only with the appointment of senior members of staff.
	The Bill provides powers enabling the Secretary of State to exercise some control over the ODA, but, again, such powers are part of the usual arrangement between any department and its appropriate NDPBs. These backstop powers of control are generally used only in two types of extreme situation: either where the body is failing or on those rare occasions when the decision to be taken is of such fundamental importance that it is a matter in which the Secretary of State needs to be involved.
	The House will be reassured to know that when submitting its annual report the authority must specify any direction that the Secretary of State has given during the year, thereby identifying the full accountability which it has exercised. This will give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the Secretary of State in giving directions to the authority and assess whether it is being overburdened. I hope that that gives the House and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who has pursued this issue with his customary diligence, adequate assurance that the department's relationship with the ODA will be at arm's length. It will allow the authority to get on with that very important job which we all recognise it has without undue interference. Consequently its classification will be that of an NDPB, and of course we will honour that classification.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very clear statement on where the ODA stands. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 [General functions]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 3, line 30, leave out ", wherever relevant"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 is grouped with Amendment No. 3. In Committee I sought to remove from Clause 4(3) the reference to relevance—first, that the Olympic Delivery Authority should "wherever relevant" have regard to maximising legacy benefits, although I am not seeking to pursue that now; and, secondly, that it should seek to,
	"contribute to achieving sustainable development".
	I find it hard to conceive of occasions when the legacy issue would not be relevant. My main concern is to hear from the Minister when contributing to sustainable development would not be relevant to the ODA, because the Bill as drafted provides the excuse not only to say that something is not relevant, but to brush it aside and hardly discuss the matter at all. My contention is that that is always relevant.
	In Committee, the Minister said that my suggestions were unrealistic. I was not persuaded then and, in response to his example, regarding the use of street cleaning products not being relevant to sustainable development, I took issue with him immediately and said that methods whereby certain products were swept down the drains was, indeed, relevant.
	Since then, the House has considered in Committee the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer tabled a similar amendment in relation to the duties of regional development agencies. The ODA has some similarities. One can see the genesis of some of the attributes of RDAs in this Bill and my noble friend's amendment would have required RDAs always to have regard to sustainable development. The Minister sought to reassure her, but in a way that did not wholly reassure her and does not reassure me, at cols. 242 and 243 on 28 February. In mentioning what had occurred in 1995—that may have been an error and he meant 2005—he stated:
	"The RDAs have already profiled a number of case studies demonstrating their contribution to sustainable development",
	and that in addition to,
	"tasking the RDAs to contribute to, and report on sustainable development, a range of other measures are in the train".
	He added that my noble friend should,
	"appreciate that over a number of years a lot of effort has gone into ensuring that sustainability plays an increased part in the RDAs' role".—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 242-243.]
	Yes, indeed, but none of that is as good as primary legislation. Neither the Minister, in relation to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, nor the noble Lord, Lord Davies, have given your Lordships an example of where contributing to achieving sustainable development might not be relevant. Nor did he—and I invite him to do so—give any assurance that the Secretary of State would give guidance or even directions on this issue, in order to strengthen the position. Under our amendment, he can do so.
	I am not asking for anything that is extreme and I hope that the Minister, if he is unable to accept the amendment, will at least help those of us who think that this matter is important to understand where we are going wrong. Perhaps he can provide some assurance as to the thinking processes of the Secretary of State and the use of directions or guidance. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying these issues again. We had a significant debate in Committee, as she indicated.
	The success of London's bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games was due, in large part, to the strength of the environmental commitments made in our bid to the International Olympic Committee. Not only do we want to deliver the best games ever, but we share with the noble Baroness the ambition to ensure that they are the most sustainable, too.
	I appreciate what she is seeking to achieve with these amendments, but as I emphasised in Committee, we have in the Bill what we think is a clear commitment to sustainable development. Clause 4(3)(b) requires the ODA to contribute to achieving sustainable development in exercising its functions as set out under Clause 4(1) and (2). But, as the Bill makes clear, the ODA should need to do so only where relevant to the exercise of its functions.
	The ODA is currently developing its procurement policy and sustainable development strategies which will enable it to meet the requirement set out in the clause. Both the ODA and the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, LOCOG, take very seriously the commitments which have been made in the document Towards a One Planet Olympics to ensure that the games will be low carbon and zero waste, conserve biodiversity and promote environmental awareness.
	Whether in terms of the provision of transport infrastructure, or construction of the venues and other facilities, or water recycling, sustainability will be central to the planning and delivery of the games and the ODA will play a key role. The requirement at Clause 4(3)(b) is sufficient to make sure the ODA guarantees that it contributes fully to sustainable development in exercising all of its functions—but only where to do so is relevant.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that we entirely share her objectives. It was crucial to the argument that we put in our bid to the IOC, and that it bore excellent comparison with all the other bids in terms of its sustainable element. While the noble Baroness rightly sought reassurance on this issue, both today and in Committee, I hope that I have given her the reassurance necessary so that she feels able to withdraw her amendments.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me for saying that, while I entirely share his sentiments about the importance of sustainability and I understand the examples that he has given, he has not addressed my amendment. I asked when such considerations might not be relevant, because if they are always relevant, the words "wherever relevant" are irrelevant, unnecessary and totally misleading.
	I will read what the Minister said, but with little hope that it will be much clearer. However, I can see that half of my argument is still open, but that the other half is firmly shut. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Lord Addington: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 3, line 35, at end insert ", and
	( ) contribute to social inclusion and the promotion of diversity and equality"

Lord Addington: My Lords, the central theme of the amendments in this group is that they are all inspired by concerns over disability, but not exclusively so.
	Much of the inspiration for the wording of the amendment came from the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to a large group of amendments that I moved in Committee. He stated:
	"The heart of the Olympic bid was the trailblazing quality of its provision, particularly for social inclusion. Disability provision was crucial".—[Official Report, 31/1/06; col. GC81.]
	This first amendment in the group seeks to put that provision in the Bill, or, at least, given that in Committee one should be seeking clarification, now ascertaining in which part of the Bill it should be stated "up front". It would sit well with subsection (3)(a) regarding the "desirability of maximising the benefits".
	Perhaps we can try to bring in something here or perhaps the Minister can give me an idea of exactly how social inclusion will be covered. I am not referring to just one group; we are talking about groups which might feel that they are being excluded—for example, people in a lower economic strata. It has been drawn to my attention recently that such a measure could be a very good vehicle for combating anti-gay media hype. If we can get some type of commitment or if the Government can give us an idea of where they will use such a commitment in the Bill and where the Bill will state that it must be done, that will help. If the Minister cannot do that, I suggest that inserting words of this nature in the Bill will be helpful.
	Then we address the ever-complicated and ever-thorny issue of transport. I understand that the Government have moved a long way and have done a lot but, unless these things are stated up front, people tend to make mistakes. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, which are concerned primarily with transport, are fairly straightforward. They say that initially you must consult and have greater concern with these matters. Amendment No. 12 would insert two new subsections stating that the authority must consult,
	"the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee",
	and,
	"such other persons or bodies which represent the interests of disabled persons as he considers it appropriate to consult".
	I should have thought that it would be very helpful to have at least the DPTAC reference in the Bill for the simple reason that it is a very complicated process, as the noble Lord knows because we dealt with transport issues and disability legislation only last week.
	I should be very relieved if the Minister could give me some assurances and also say where the Bill ties those who are dealing with this matter to ensuring that they get the maximum amount of information up front so that we do not have to go back eternally and chase our tails in putting in something that we have missed. I know that the Government's intention is good—that is not in dispute. The question is: where is the commitment or guarantee to so do? Where is it referred to in the Bill? Is it up front, where those who have a requirement to act in that way will notice it? I do not want them to go back and have to spend more money and also delay any changes or positive provisions that have to be made. If the Minister can give me any assurances on this, I shall be very satisfied. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we had an intensive debate in Grand Committee on disability issues. As a result, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and placed a copy of my letter in the House Library. In my letter, I set out to answer the questions which he had addressed on the issue of access for all. I hope that he felt that that letter offered significant assurance that the best practice standards and lifetime home standards will be adopted for homes in the Olympic park.
	The noble Lord will recognise that the ODA will be a public authority within the meaning of the relevant provisions of disability legislation and so will be subject to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as subsequently amended. When these requirements come into force, particularly in terms of the specific duties to publish equality schemes, the ODA will involve the views of disabled people in its planning and report on progress. It will be required to do that as a responsible public body.
	As I explained in Committee, the Government believe that these duties on the public sector are important tools in transforming our society into one that is more equal and provides greater opportunities for disabled people. Ministers are likely to bring forward the necessary regulations in the next year, and certainly well before we make significant developments with the Olympic park and access to it. So, although I cannot give a definite commitment about precisely when these regulations will come into force, the noble Lord can rest assured that we intend that they will do so as rapidly as possible for more general issues with regard to the nation, although there are certainly also relevant issues in relation to the Olympic Games.
	I turn to the noble Lord's amendments. I cannot accept Amendment No. 4, which would require the ODA to have regard to social inclusion and the promotion of diversity and equality in carrying out its functions. Of course, the authority will be covered by race relations and disability discrimination legislation, and it will have specific duties to contribute to sustainable development and the long-term legacy of the games. But it is hard to see that an additional general requirement to promote "social inclusion", "diversity" or "equality" is either appropriate or necessary on top of the existing duties.
	As I said in Committee, I believe that it is for a body with a wide-ranging scope, such as the GLA, to deliver on those agendas. The ODA is a technocratic delivery agency and, as a public body, it will have regard to the disability Acts to which I referred and the regulations that we will bring into place subsequent to them. But I do not think that it would be appropriate to give it duties beyond its remit.
	I turn to the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. As I and my colleagues in the other place have already stated, we want to ensure that the games are accessible to all and we have started planning for disabled access. As I indicated in Committee, how can we think in terms of the Olympic Games and the Paralympics and not provide adequately for access by disabled citizens? Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are about ensuring that the Olympic transport plan takes account of the needs of disabled people. We have plans to do exactly that, and we will ensure that, in its final version, the Olympic transport plan takes full account of the kind of points to which the noble Lord referred. In particular, we will ensure that that the ODA consults representatives of the interests of disabled persons in drawing up the plan.
	I turn to the question of a list. The noble Lord has indicated certain bodies which should be consulted. Amendment No. 12 would require the ODA to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and other representatives of disabled groups. Clause 10(3) sets out the key organisations and people that the ODA will need to consult in preparing and revising the Olympic transport plan, but of course there are others whose input will also be crucial.
	As I said in Committee, it is not possible for us to produce an exhaustive list of bodies that the ODA should consult, but Clause 10(3)(k) makes provision for the ODA to consult such other persons as it thinks appropriate in order to meet the noble Lord's concern about the disabled—a concern which I share, as will the ODA. We fully expect the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to be one of the groups consulted. Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 will enable the Secretary of State to give guidance and directions to that effect if, for some reason, such consultation does not take place. I ask the noble Lord to recognise that we do not necessarily achieve these objectives by drawing up a list. Even if at this stage we were tempted to be exhaustive, we might well leave out from the legislation other bodies which we had not envisaged.
	However, I assure the noble Lord that the broad objectives that he expresses are entirely shared. It is obvious that the body to which he referred will need to be consulted. I know through vast experience in other areas of action and legislation that if the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee were not consulted, it would make its views known, and Secretaries of State do not ignore such representations. If it happened in this case, the Secretary of State would have the power to take action to ensure that consultation took place. I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured by those comments and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I shall deal with Amendment No. 4 first. Social inclusion seems to be an aim of the games and, to be perfectly honest, it would not have hurt to try to work in a general duty such as this because it has been implicit in much of what has been said. But let that rest where it is. I think that we are going to have to keep a watching brief on this matter to ensure that the best benefits of that part of the process are fulfilled.
	The noble Lord has gone quite a long way in saying that the objective of Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 is expected to be part of the result and in saying that there shall be consultation with the bodies suggested here or their successor bodies. If I understood the Minister correctly, this would be part of the normal process and it would be totally inappropriate, if not abnormal, if they were not consulted in this process. That is as close an assurance as we can get, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 [Planning]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 4, line 34, leave out "specified case" and insert "case specified by an order of the Secretary of State subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, at the previous stage I asked the Minister whether he could explain the words "in a specified case", in Clause 5(4)(b), which provides that when the ODA is appointed as the local planning authority, the Mayor of London may direct it to refuse an application for planning permission in a specified case. The Minister referred to reserving the Mayor's right,
	"to refuse applications in specified cases",
	using the same terminology,
	"and those specified cases relate to the special"—
	that may be Hansard over-egging it—
	"spatial development strategy".—[Official Report, 31/1/06; col. GC 108.]
	It is certainly special because there is only one. I queried that because it seemed to me that it did not need to be said. The spatial development strategy, otherwise known more easily as the London Plan, has a particular status, in any event. The Minister went on to say that the Mayor retains that power—the power that he already has. As far as I understood, he did not explain the word "specified".
	I have tabled this amendment which amplifies the expression by referring to it as a "case specified by an order" subject to the negative resolution procedure so that we could have a more detailed explanation of the position. I am not sure whether what this refers to is heralding a new development order or whether it is the same as, or different from, the current position under an order made under the GLA Act giving the Mayor the right to direct a local planning authority to refuse an application in certain cases. In the GLA Act, the term is not specified; the term is "prescribe", which is perhaps rather more familiar to your Lordships. As my noble friend said on the previous amendment, we seek clarification and I hope that the Minister can help me understand better what leads to specification as provided by Clause 5. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness has presented her amendment. Had she suggested that we cross swords, I would probably have beaten a retreat from the fray on the ground that I am no match for her on planning issues. However, I can reassure her that this is not a matter of clashing of swords but it is a meeting of minds on these issues. I shall do my best to explain in detail exactly why I believe we think alike about the powers of the Mayor, the areas in which they will be used and the nature of the ODA and its responsibilities, although I shall ask her to withdraw her amendment.
	In Grand Committee, we discussed extensively the powers of the Mayor of London to direct planning authorities to refuse planning applications. In that debate, I gave reasons why the Mayor should be able to direct the ODA to refuse planning ambitions in some limited circumstances. I shall try to make the case again today, as I appear not to have been convincing in Committee.
	The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an order which would define those cases in which the Mayor can direct refusal of an application. The trouble is that it would put the ODA, in its role as planning authority for the Olympic park, in a different position from other planning authorities in London, when our intention under the Bill is to ensure that the ODA is foursquare with other planning authorities in London. We believe that is the right approach. The Bill as drafted already gives the Mayor power to direct refusal of applications, when read in conjunction with Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The cases in which the Mayor can direct refusal are already set out in the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, made under Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	I would like to respond to the issue on which we had some divergence in Committee about the spatial development strategy—the London Plan. I shall have to be somewhat technical here as I was unconvincing in Committee and I hope to be rather more convincing today. The noble Baroness asked whether the London Plan would be a material consideration in the ODA's decisions on planning applications. I can confirm that the London Plan will have the same status for the ODA as for all other planning authorities. By virtue of Section 38(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the spatial development strategy, which we all know as the London Plan, is part of the development plan and is, therefore, more than a material consideration. Section 38(6) of that Act states that a determination under the planning Acts must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In addition, Clause 5(5)(e) of the Bill requires regard to be had to the development plan in discharging the functions of the ODA. Again, when referring here to the development plan, we also refer to the spatial development strategy. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that we have a clear grasp of the concept of the spatial development strategy.
	On the Mayor's planning powers, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor of London has responsibility for strategic planning across London and for ensuring that the strategic planning interests of London as a whole are taken into account by decision makers. In order to carry out this responsibility, the Mayor must have a means of intervening in the decision-making process where issues of genuine strategic importance are concerned. Accordingly, the Mayor has the right to direct a local planning authority to refuse a specific application for planning permission—I hope I am responding to the concern of the Baroness about the nature of "specific"—if he considers the proposal would undermine the spatial development strategy or otherwise be contrary to good strategic planning in London.
	This Bill would allow the ODA to be appointed as a local planning authority in place of the relevant local authority to allow it to oversee a co-ordinated approach to the development of the Olympic park, which embraces more than one authority. When such a step is taken, the Bill therefore translates the power of the Mayor to direct a local authority into a power to direct the ODA. A specific case will be one that meets the criteria set out in the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, made under Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It must be right that there is consistency and that the ODA should be in exactly the same position as a local planning authority because the success or failure of strategic policies is ultimately determined through individual development control decisions. It would not be appropriate for this Bill to amend the way that the planning process works, and we have no intention of doing so. Had we assayed that course, I would be in even more difficulty than I am in now in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I can confirm that the Government's intention in Clause 5(4) of the Bill is to preserve the Mayor's powers of direction so that the Mayor will have the same powers within the ODA boundary as he has in those parts of London outside that boundary.
	I hope the noble Baroness will feel that I have defined the issue sufficiently accurately and in a rather more convincing form than I was able to do in Committee so that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that I am also grateful to those who briefed him. He is absolutely right: the ODA should be foursquare with other local planning authorities on this. Having confirmed that nothing new is heralded by the reference to a "specified case", that it is backward-looking and that the existing position will continue—which is extremely helpful—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 [Security]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) the incorporation of infrastructure and facilities for such purposes in all arrangements which it makes"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I will speak also to Amendment No. 8. I apologise to the House; Amendment No. 7 on this issue, which we debated in Committee, was tabled in error. I will not be referring to it.
	I hope that the Minister can add to the assurances given on 2 February, when we debated the matter, and in the letter he subsequently wrote to me. Everyone agrees that security at the games is an extremely important issue, but these amendments go a little further than the Bill might be read as going—I have quite deliberately put it in that way. I have generally referred in these amendments to infrastructure, facilities and the timing of considering infrastructure and facilities, to make the point clearly that these matters need to be written in throughout the preparations for the development of venues—indeed, before planning permission is granted, right at the design and thinking stage.
	The amendment in Committee was tabled after I had had an exchange with the Metropolitan Police Authority and the property services division of the Metropolitan Police Service. They have asked whether any further assurances can be given. The Minister told the Committee that a Cabinet-level committee would lead on security arrangements, and that the Secretary of State has powers of direction which could be used if necessary. My amendments are to ensure attention to the rather less obvious considerations, not of applying security during the games but of preparing for them so that there are places at venues where anyone whom the police have to arrest can be held and where the police's equipment—and, my goodness, I suspect that they are going to need quite a lot for crowd control and so on—can be stored. I am thinking of all those sorts of things; I do not need to repeat the list today.
	These are not add-ons. They need to be thought about from the very beginning. We must all have had experiences where something thought about seriously a bit late in the day is less than satisfactory. I hope that the Minister is able to say a little more. At the very least, I will now read into the record a paragraph from his letter of 14 February, when he said:
	"Security arrangements are of central importance to the successful delivery of the Games. That is why it is essential to design in security from the outset"—
	I emphasise "from the outset"—
	"by working with the ODA, police and security services to design venues that minimise risks".
	I add that it is not just a question of minimising risks; it is a question of planning for how you meet eventualities. Anything more that the Minister can say to reassure those who, quite properly, are already—more than six years out—concerned with this level of detail would be welcome. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she moved her amendment. My letters, although commented on favourably, never seem to achieve the desired result, which is to reduce debate on the issues that I discuss in them, but I hear what she says. She appreciated receipt of the letter in which I sought to give the most obvious commitment on the fact that security will be a concern of the ODA from the outset. The ODA has a duty to plan for safe and secure venues, and the interim ODA is already doing that. The authority has made a good start in planning for safety and security. The provisions in this Bill will ensure that it continues that work.
	I just do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I appreciate that security is of the greatest significance for the games. We could not have had a sharper reminder than on the day following the announcement of the wonderfully successful bid for the games, with the most catastrophic event in London of recent years. Everyone is well aware of the fact that security has to be to the fore. The ODA is already consulting the police on all major aspects of the Olympic park design. It is establishing a close working relationship, which will continue, because there is no way in which it can deliver these games in a safe and secure manner without the fullest possible such consultation. The point of this duty of consultation is to build security in from the very start of the Olympic project, and I want to reassure noble Lords that that is happening. We do not need a requirement to consult in the Bill. The interim authority is already acting in a way that should reassure noble Lords on this.
	Nor can the Bill specify in exact detail all the ways in which the ODA will discharge this security function. The Bill gives the authority the overarching duty; it is then for the ODA to fulfil that duty. That applies particularly to Amendment No. 8, but the same point applies for Amendment No. 6. We put the ODA under a duty to have regard to safety and security, and to consult. It is inevitable that it will need to agree with the police exactly what infrastructure and facilities are necessary to guarantee that these commitments are carried out.
	In Committee, I gave an indication of the sort of budget that we have already allocated for security—some £213 million. I am glad that the chairman of the London organising committee, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, is in his place. I hope that he will not feel moved to speak at great length on any of these amendments, because I hope that I am able to establish that he is both carrying out his duties in these terms and aware of the necessity for a budget. Some £23 million will come from LOCOG's own budget, raised through private sponsorship. The remaining £190 million, as I have indicated, will come from the wider public sector funding package. In addition to this substantial budget, the police and security services will be working to ensure that London and the UK are kept safe and secure. The ODA will have regard to providing security arrangements through all its plans for the games and it is already carrying out this work.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was correct when she pointed out in Committee that the Secretary of State holds a power of direction over the ODA in reserve. However, I am confident that that reserve power will not need to be exercised. I cannot conceive of anyone concerned with the serious development of the games not putting security as their very highest objective.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, indicated to me that he was not able to be present this evening, but in Committee he raised an important point on whether the security services should be specified in the Bill as a statutory consultee. I indicated in Committee—and I reiterate the point today—that that is not necessary. It is achieved in the way in which the Bill is drafted. The Bill places an obligation on the ODA to consult those with the preponderant voice on security in its broadest sense—that is, the police. The police will take the advice that they need, including from the security services, in order to give their view on guaranteeing security for the games. It is not for the ODA to consult a range of interests and then to reach a view on its own about what security arrangements are needed. We would not expect the ODA to have the expertise to do that, nor would it be a proper burden to place upon it. Rather, it is for the ODA to consult the police, who will provide that co-ordinated view on how security is to be sustained.
	I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that the Bill fully takes on board the very proper anxieties about security and that the noble Baroness will therefore feel able to withdraw her amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, when he reads Hansard, will share in the general reassurance.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I think that he misunderstands our references to his letters. They are models of clarity and elegance, which is why we wish to read paragraphs into the record. I am sure that he will understand that the points made in semi-public correspondence can helpfully be put on to the public record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
	Clause 7 [Street lighting and cleaning]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 5, line 19, at beginning insert "Where appropriate,"

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister will recall a somewhat scrappy group of amendments in Grand Committee dealing with Clause 7, among which was a probing amendment of mine to explore the limits of the obligations imposed by the clause. Unfortunately, it was not an amendment that proposed a solution to my—and, in the end, the Minister's—dilemma.
	The Bill says:
	"The Olympic Delivery Authority may arrange with an authority responsible for cleaning or lighting a highway or other area to which this section applies for cleaning or lighting to be carried out in a specified manner or to a specified standard during all or part of the London Olympics period".
	Subsection (5) says:
	"This section applies to any highway or other area to which the public have access and which the Authority reasonably expect to be used . . . (c) by persons travelling to a London Olympic event".
	My problem was, and, indeed, still is, that that could be used to describe any road in the country. It is a completely open-ended potential liability.
	In Committee, I suggested to the Minister that, if we were to put the words "where appropriate" at the beginning of this clause, that would enable the Olympic Delivery Authority to have discretion in the matter, so that it could make decisions to undertake this action where it thought it proper to do so. My mythical Scot from John O'Groats, who felt aggrieved because he could not get a new street light as he was marching to the Olympics, would disappear into the mists where he deserves to remain. I remind the Minister of his reply:
	"I shall look at the point raised by the noble Lord. Those words are not before the Committee at present, but I shall look at the end to see whether we can meet the anxieties expressed today by some alteration to the clause".—[Official Report, 2/2/06; col. GC192.]
	We still have the clause as it is; we do not have a government amendment. I thought that it was worth tabling my amendment again. It seems to me that the amendment would give the Olympic Delivery Authority a reasonable discretion, which it should have, rather than the open-ended commitment implied by the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, is there not adequate discretion in the word "may" in the first line of the clause?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I may be seeking the indulgence of the House, in which case I hope that it will be granted, but my noble friend's amendment covers broadly the same concepts as I sought to cover in an amendment in Committee. The Minister will recall that I was unable to move it at that stage, as I was participating in the debate in the Chamber relating to the Speakership in my capacity as chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers. I said that I would move the amendment on Report. I fear that I was foiled at the end of last week by taking to my sick bed, so my amendment was not put down. Nevertheless, it relates to the relationship with the local authorities responsible for aspects of public services. I hope that the Minister will be content if I expand on this somewhat.
	The amendment which I sought to move on the last occasion was to Schedule 1, page 31, line 15, at the end insert:
	"(4) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the Authority includes at least one member who represents the interests of the London borough councils".
	As the Bill stands, there is no formal provision for any London local authority representation on the ODA, yet it has many provisions that will significantly affect the powers of local authorities, including the loss of powers in relation to planning, cleansing, lighting, transport and licensing functions, which of course are touched on in my noble friend's amendment.
	It is, of course, local authorities which have the current expertise in many of these areas. Naturally, the Olympics are an event of unprecedented scale, but it is fair to point out that many London local authorities not merely operate these services just on a day-to-day, run-of-the-mill basis, but have significant experience of running them to facilitate major national events.
	The City of Westminster, for example, which drew this amendment to my attention, has a fine record in delivering services to ensure the smooth setting up, running and completion of major national one-off events such as the Queen's Golden Jubilee, or, to pick a more recent example, the enormous Live 8 concert in Hyde Park, as well as large annual events such as the Notting Hill carnival and the London marathon. In 2012, Westminster will be the host borough for four Olympic events as well as the start of the marathon. Venues being used in Westminster will include Hyde Park for the triathlon, Regent's Park for road cycling, Lord's cricket ground for archery and Horse Guards Parade for beach volleyball. These are venues where the local authority already has, in many cases, huge experience in facilitating big events.
	So it would seem just plain common sense for local authorities to be formally represented on the ODA in order to create a clear channel to feed in their many years' experience of operating the basics—services such as cleansing and lighting, which are the subject of the clause and which need to be got right. It is essential that there should be a voice at the table that can represent London local authorities to bring this knowledge and expertise to bear directly on the direction and operation of the ODA. The concept of an individual or authority having lead responsibility in pan-London matters is very familiar to anyone who has experience of private Bills in London, where a single authority promotes a Bill on behalf of the ALG as a whole. If the Minister casts his mind back, he will recall that when he was a London member he moved a Ten Minute Rule Bill to abolish the Corporation of the City of London—different times and different agendas.
	In terms purely of structure, the Government have clearly acknowledged that the model for the London fire authority, which includes borough representation, is working so well that they are actively consulting in rolling out this model to encompass other parts of the GLA family, such as Transport for London. Therefore, not adopting the structure for the ODA seems to run counter to the structural changes being made elsewhere in London.
	The Minister's response in Committee to my amendment, which I could not move but which was supported by my noble friend Lord Glentoran, was:
	"When we considered how the ODA ought to interact with the borough councils and with others that greatly impact in its work—and on which it is in many ways dependent—we took the decision that the ODA board members should be chosen not for their representative quality, which is not the role of the board, but for the expertise that they bring to the overall organisation of the infrastructure relating to the games".—[Official Report, 31/01/06; col. GC70.]
	It seems to me that the response that I have just cited is torpedoed by what is stated in Schedule 1, page 31, line 15, which immediately precedes the provision in the amendment that I failed to move in Committee and failed to table for Report. Schedule 1(3) states:
	"In appointing members of the Authority the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of their having experience relevant to—
	(a) the nature of the authority's functions, and
	(b) the places in relation to which they are likely to be exercised".
	Both those paragraphs seem to me to call for exactly the kind of experience that an appropriate representative from the London boroughs would contribute.
	I have sought the indulgence of your Lordships' House—the Whip is nodding that I have done so and I concur with him—but I should be grateful for a somewhat more extensive response than the Minister gave in Committee.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we discussed these issues extensively in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is doing himself an injustice by disparaging the quality of his amendments. They provoked an interesting debate, although not one to which I replied to the satisfaction of all concerned, otherwise noble Lords would not have tabled their amendments today; nor would the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, have made the contribution, that he has. I shall try to do better this second time.
	I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has tabled the amendment because he seeks to limit the potential liability of the ODA to provide street lighting and cleaning. Otherwise, its powers, duties and obligations would appear to be almost limitless—up to the mythical Scotsman worried about lighting in his street well north of the Border. However, my noble friend Lord Borrie nailed the issue almost immediately with his characteristic perceptiveness. Clause 7 states that the ODA,
	"may arrange with an authority",
	for street lighting or cleaning to be carried out during the Olympic Games period.
	I fully appreciate the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I am certain that he shares with me one objective. We want to ensure that, with the spotlight on London, London looks at its best in 2012. In fact, we want a great deal of the country to look at its best in 2012 because the Olympic Games go well beyond London. Clean, tidy and well-lit streets form an important part of the environment looking good. We must recognise that we are not just talking about visitors, vast numbers of whom we anticipate being here. Television can be very adept at picking up such detail. That is why we want the country to look as good as it possibly can. We want to put on the best games ever and we want to ensure that they take place in the best possible environment.
	To deliver that, the Bill gives the ODA the ability to enter into arrangements with authorities, not the authority that governs that benighted Scotsman—he would be benighted if he thought that his street was not well lit but that would not necessarily be relevant to the Olympic Games—but to those areas relevant to the planning and provision of the games and the focal point of everyone's attention while the games are on. The ODA will have a limited budget, so it will need carefully to consider in which areas it will need to enter into arrangements with particular authorities. It is bound to be selective, so I want to lay to rest the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on that score.
	The ODA has the ability, not an obligation, to enter into arrangements and it will have to make the choice. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on this point. The Bill does not place any obligation on a local authority to provide additional services such as street lighting and cleaning. It states that the ODA may arrange with the local authority to improve cleaning and lighting. Of course, that will be part of an agreement struck by the ODA, exercising its proper authority, and the local authority concerned.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for emphasising that when the ODA approaches Westminster—I am sure that this is true for the other boroughs concerned—it will receive a welcome response. Several of those boroughs—Westminster is clearly an outstanding example—are used to putting on events to which the nation's and, sometimes, the world's, attention is focused, to a very high standard, including guaranteeing that the lighting and street cleaning are of the very highest standard.
	I also want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I sought to disabuse the Committee of the notion that that outcome could be achieved by a representative quality to the ODA's board members—that there should be a local authority representative on the ODA. We do not conceive of the ODA as being representative of interests in those terms. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, with the leave of the House, by reading an extract from an advertisement for ODA board members, which lists the areas of expertise, interests and capacities that they may have. One of them mentions local government/communities. It states that the successful candidate:
	"will be able to give evidence of significant successful experience of community liaison; an understanding of key local, social and political issues in London; significant leadership experience within local government; a clear vision of how to ensure delivery of the legacy for the local area and its people, not just in terms of regeneration".
	So we are looking for expertise on the board that will reflect exactly the area that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was concerned to emphasise without thinking that that should be a representative role of an ODA member. When the board is drawn up, that is clearly an area of expertise and experience that we will expect to be represented by a board member or some board members.
	I emphasise that the Bill does not place the ODA under an obligation to provide street lighting and cleaning in all areas touched by the games. It will be for the authority to take the decision about which areas will be covered. It will of course negotiate with responsible authorities to ensure that it hits the highest standard possible. So the ODA is not being overstretched; it is not under an obligation. However, it has a clear remit to carry out its work and present the games in the best possible environment, which includes clean streets and well-lit areas. The authority will make sensible decisions, alongside appropriate local authorities, to guarantee that that is achieved. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be reassured on those points and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to whom I have only one word in response—touché. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke for raising the wider perspective to the issue, which he was unable to do in Grand Committee. That has enabled a more thorough and, to a certain extent, a more focused debate. As I said, our debate in Grand Committee was a little scrappier and certainly not as well focused. The Minister has clearly directed our attention today to the issue. In the light of his explanations, especially given the significance of what is reported in Hansard in interpreting the Bill, that is enough to satisfy me on this occasion. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 10:
	After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
	"LONDON ORGANISING COMMITTEE
	The Secretary of State shall make an order under section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36) (further power to designate public authorities) designating the London Organising Committee as a public authority for the purposes of that Act."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in Grand Committee, I moved an amendment that dealt with several aspects of the structure and constitution of LOCOG.
	I was not altogether surprised at the rejection of such a wide-ranging amendment. The Minister put it very robustly when he said:
	"We will be involved in a conflict of perception, unless I can persuade her that the Government have got it right".—[Official Report, 2/2/06; col. GC198.]
	We may be involved in a conflict of principle on one aspect—freedom of information. The Minister argued then that LOCOG will be a private company funded privately, and therefore should not automatically come within FOI legislation. Indeed, he said:
	"The Government have to take stock of the requirements under the Act over a range of their activities. As LOCOG is such a new organisation, and this pattern is still bedding down, we are reserving our position to review LOCOG in relation to the Freedom of Information Act".—[Official Report, 2/2/06; col. GC199.]
	We on these Benches do not think that it is appropriate to reserve that position; this matter should be settled now. Yes, LOCOG will be a private company, but for a very public purpose. Yes, it will be funded by private money, but as part of a much bigger public whole. Its whole rationale and raison d'être is public. It could not operate if central and local government had not decided to go for the bid and to stage the games. I believe that it is close to disingenuous to characterise it as separate and not public. I believe that it is public in almost every sense. Public money and public support will enable it to operate.
	LOCOG has a clear style and a simple vision which, according to its chairman the noble Lord, Lord Coe—one of the many Olympians on the Conservative Benches at the moment, which I always find a little fazing, because I know that they know so much more about all this than some of us do—is,
	"to stage inspirational Olympic Games and Paralympic Games that capture the imagination of young people around the world and leave a lasting legacy".
	Indeed, but I hope that that legacy will not contain an iota of secrecy. LOCOG has a long list of detailed responsibilities; I do not think that I have to read them out, because your Lordships are familiar with its remit. It is required to write a final report within two years after the games, but it would be very odd if public accountability and scrutiny were limited to this.
	Our amendment requires an order to be made under the Freedom of Information Act, which seems designed for just that purpose. Under Section 5, the Secretary of State may designate as a public authority a person who does not otherwise come under the Act. I accept implicitly for this purpose the Minister's argument that LOCOG does not already come under the Act by virtue of Section 4, although there is quite an argument that it does.
	I have heard that the issue is what the Government will do with LOCOG after the games. I assume that, under the Freedom of Information Act, LOCOG can be designated for a limited period or de-designated but, even if that were not so, I do not think that that would be good argument for keeping private what the man in the street—a street possibly lit and cleansed under the Bill—travelling on London's transport network, which has been improved to facilitate the games, to venues provided by the ODA, an authority created for the games under the Bill, would regard as a public event in any normal sense.
	Historically, the games have not been wholly free from controversy, and I do not suggest for a moment that anyone involved in the 2012 games would dream of doing anything that they would prefer to be kept secret, but not everyone is quite as trusting as I am, and the best way of dispelling distrust to facilitate information is to apply what every other public organisation—I use the word "public" advisedly—and body is subject to, subject of course to the long list of exemptions in the Act on commercial confidentiality, security issues and so on. These are London's games and the UK's games, and I believe that Londoners and UK citizens should, subject to those exceptions, be able to find out how they are being run. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am afraid that I must disagree for the first time with my friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. This amendment is a step too far and, at worst, it could probably be damaging. The Olympic Delivery Authority is the public body charged with delivery. LOCOG is nothing like the same animal; it is quite different and separate, and is charged with organisation. It will deal largely with private-sector companies and private-sector management teams which are used to the business management culture of private companies—when I say private, I include PLCs; I do not mean personally owned companies, because I am sure that they will be multinational PLCs.
	I have not spoken to my noble friend Lord Coe on this matter, in case it might be thought that I had. These are purely my own views. I simply believe that this would be damaging. I do not think that the Freedom of Information Act would be anything other than unhelpful in this context, and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment to a vote.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall be brief. I strongly support my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who I thought put the case very clearly and succinctly in favour of bringing LOCOG within the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that he had not previously disagreed with my noble friend and I, likewise, think that this is the first time that we have disagreed about the Bill.
	LOCOG may, as a private company, have a different status from the ODA, but it is simply the other half of the delivery of the Olympic Games for London. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, may be completely right that many of the contracts that LOCOG is dealing with are commercial, but there are very clear exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act, which states:
	"Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade secret . . . Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person including the public authority holding it".
	LOCOG need have no fear of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, but it is only right and proper that it should be subject to the terms of the Act.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the Freedom of Information Act has one particular impact; it eats up time. It puts huge costs and expense on companies, and no one knows that better than Her Majesty's Government, who are having to spend I dare say millions now answering queries and doing research to meet demands under the Act.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in any event, LOCOG will be very much under the public spotlight. It will be spending large amounts of money raised for a public purpose, and I believe that it should therefore devote the necessary resources to what is necessary under the Freedom of Information Act. So I very much hope that the Minister, who sadly did not write his customary letter on this issue, as he has done on almost every other issue on the Bill. No letter was received on this subject, and perhaps he can make up for that omission now.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she introduced this amendment. She was kind enough not to challenge me on the contribution that I made in Committee where I may have given the impression that we had doubts on some aspects of the Freedom of Information Act: I indicated the difficulties with regard to the Act. The whole House knows that the Act has been in existence for only just over a year. There are teething problems and many challenges lie ahead. They do not just lie ahead: the Act has implicit in it a whole range of challenges over freedom of information.
	In Committee, I sought to wrestle with the challenging issue of where the lines are to be drawn, given our experience of the Act as it has operated up to now, among very disparate bodies. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for indicating why the claims that LOCOG should be under the Freedom of Information Act should be resisted. LOCOG is very different from the Olympic Delivery Authority. We do not have the slightest hesitation that the ODA falls, as a public body, within the framework of the Act. We intend that it fulfils its duties in that respect.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated, LOCOG is a different body. It is a private company, limited by guarantee. It will be almost entirely privately financed, with funding coming from private sector, commercial sponsorship. It also gets a sizeable sum from the International Olympic Committee. LOCOG has contractual obligations to the IOC under the host city contract, so it is very different from the Olympic Delivery Authority. It is not a public body in the same sense at all.
	We are not saying that LOCOG at some stage might fall within the framework of the Freedom of Information Act, but we know that it is not for this Bill to specify that. That is a consideration to be taken under the policy of the implementation of the FOI Act. For very obvious reasons, LOCOG fits into a different category altogether from those public bodies which we can identify, provided for out of public resource, which are bound to be open to questions in respect of freedom of information.
	I am not trying to hide behind some abstruse argument with regard to the Bill. We say only that freedom of information is not the business of this Bill. Freedom of information, the Act and how we implement it are proper concerns of this House and, of course, the other place. We all know that we have, and will have, a considerable amount of work on decisions on freedom of information issues. But it would not be appropriate for us, within the framework of this Bill when it becomes an Act, to define LOCOG, when we have to consider it in the round with a whole range of other institutions and where they fit into freedom of information.
	If I appear negative about freedom of information, I hope that it is not because it has been suggested that as a government representative I am cool about the concept of freedom of information—very far from it. We are implementing the Act and making very great progress in the openness of information for our society. I am indicating that I am not prepared to consider freedom of information within the framework of this Bill. That is why I want the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, a distinction has been made between the ODA and LOCOG. But, to paraphrase my noble friend, they are mutually dependent. Freedom of information eats up time. But that is not an exception or an exemption listed in the many clauses of the Freedom of Information Act. I do not believe that it is to the credit of a Government, who were applauded for introducing freedom of information, to except a body now because of problems with which, admittedly, we are all dealing as it beds down. I anticipated most of the arguments made by the Minister, so I will not trouble the House by repeating them. He said that it is not for this Bill to specify that LOCOG should be subject to freedom of information, although perhaps it will become so in the future, and that freedom of information is not the business of this Bill. I believe that it is the business of this Bill. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 116.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 10 [Olympic Transport Plan]:
	[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
	Clause 20 [Regulations: supplemental]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 15, line 12, at end insert "shall consult"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13 I shall speak to the other amendments grouped with it. The amendments relate to those the Secretary of State must consult when making regulations under Clause 19 to control advertising in the vicinity of Olympic venues, and under Clause 26 to control street trading. We had extensive and constructive debates on these issues in Grand Committee. They centred on whether we should place a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to consult the advertising industry and anyone else likely to be directly affected by the regulations made under Clauses 19 and 26. My ministerial colleagues in the other place and I have given unequivocal assurances that such consultation will take place, but I am pleased to bring forward amendments today that put those commitments on a statutory basis.
	The amendments address the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill dated 15 December. I hope that noble Lords will feel that the fears expressed during our debates in Committee have now been allayed. Amendment No. 15 ensures that the advertising industry and anyone else who may be affected by the regulations will be consulted as they are drawn up. Amendment No. 20 provides that those likely to be affected by the regulations to be made under Clause 26 on street trading are similarly consulted. The remaining amendments in the group make minor and consequential changes.
	I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Government have listened to the debate in Committee and have brought forward these amendments in a spirit of understanding of the legitimate concerns expressed, and that they commend themselves to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those words and I am only sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Coe, are not in their places to see the more constructive fruits that have emerged from the Grand Committee stage. These are significant amendments and will be warmly welcomed by the industry. It will be extremely useful to have them in the Bill.
	I want to make a few points of clarification. The government amendments make no mention of the period to be set aside for consultation. It would be helpful to have some indication from the Minister of the likely length of the consultative exercise to be conducted by the DCMS. Indeed, no doubt the Minister will be aware that the Cabinet Office's own Code of Practice on Consultation, which applies to consultation undertaken by government departments, indicates that the period should be no less than 12 weeks.
	As I mentioned in Grand Committee, the International Olympic Committee may request that changes are made to its technical manual on brand protection at any time between now and 2012. The manuals form an integral part of the host city contract, and the Bill is intended to give legislative effect to the contractual obligations entered into by the Government. Were the IOC to make further changes to its technical manual on brand protection after any initial set of regulations are made under Clause 19 on, say, the physical location of advertising at some point between 2010 and 2012, presumably that would require further amending regulations to be made. Government assurance is therefore sought that in addition to consulting on the initial set of regulations issued, any further amending regulations required by the IOC as a consequence of changes the committee may make to the manual would also be consulted on. From a reading of the Bill I assume that is the case, but I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm it. Generally, however, I certainly welcome the amendments.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. I can reassure him on his second point. On his first point, we envisage a consultation period of 12 weeks at the very least and possibly somewhat longer. Having made it clear that we incorporate consultation into the Bill, we will carry it out to the fullest extent possible consonant with getting the job done. We have had long experience of consultation with an industry as significant as advertising and we will set in train the necessary consultations.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 17:
	Page 15, line 13, leave out "shall consult"
	Page 15, line 15, at end insert—
	"(aa) one or more persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent interests within the advertising industry which are likely to be affected by the regulations,
	(ab) such other persons, who appear to the Secretary of State to represent interests likely to be affected by the regulations, as he thinks appropriate,"
	Page 15, line 16, leave out "shall consult"
	Page 15, line 17, leave out "shall consult"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Section 25: supplemental]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 22:
	Page 20, line 5, at end insert "shall consult"
	Page 20, line 6, leave out "shall consult"
	Page 20, line 8, at end insert—
	"(aa) such persons, who appear to the Secretary of State to represent interests likely to be affected by the regulations, as he thinks appropriate,"
	Page 20, line 9, leave out "shall consult"
	Page 20, line 10, leave out "shall consult"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [London Olympics Association Right]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 47, leave out lines 30 to 35 and insert—
	:TITLE3:"Infringement: specific expressions
	3 (1) For the purpose of considering whether a person has infringed the London Olympics association right a court may, in particular, take account of his use of a combination of expressions of a kind specified in sub-paragraph (2)."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 as well. The amendment deals with a controversial issue which was debated extensively and intensively in Committee—the evidential burden relating to the new London Olympics association right that we have created. This burden relates to the list of words and phrases in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4. The schedule currently provides that the use of these words and phrases in combination will, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, be treated as constituting an association with the London Olympics. We think that the list of words and phrases contained in Schedule 4 are important in helping the public understand what sort of activity may create an association with the London games and what sort of activity would fall foul of the London Olympics association right.
	Concern was expressed in Committee about the evidential burden in Schedule 4. Our intention was never to create an onerous or draconian provision. We were accused of doing so in Committee and I sought to rebut those challenges. We were seeking to create a practical and workable piece of legislation that would give greater clarity about what sorts of activity were likely to infringe the association right.
	The debate in Committee highlighted some difficulties in this area. That is why I tabled Amendment No. 23; it removes the evidential presumption in Schedule 4 which was the burden of all the main contributions in Committee critical of the legislation. We suggested in its place a provision which makes it clear that when considering whether the association right has been breached, a court may in particular consider whether the defendant has used a combination of words listed in Schedule 4(3)(3).
	The amendment therefore creates a position whereby due prominence is given to the words and phrases in Schedule 4 without creating the evidential burden that caused such concerns in Committee. In removing the evidential presumption in Schedule 4, we have also taken the opportunity to make related and appropriate changes to the scope of the London Olympics association right, which is what Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 do.
	The case was made in Committee, by persuasive arguments, that the real issue was that someone could be brought before a court with the evidential burdens stacked against them. We are seeking to right that balance and I hope that noble Lords will think that we have produced a solution to what was recognised as a significant problem in Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed. He faced a very heavy artillery barrage in Committee. The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Borrie, among others, trained their fire on the Minister, and I am glad he recognised the force of the argument. Whether we call it the presumption of guilt, the presumption of liability or an evidential presumption, this presumption has been replaced by no presumption at all. The amendment is hugely welcome on all sides of the House. It colours a great deal of our approach to Schedule 4, and it has had a beneficial effect on our thinking about how the schedule will operate generally except in one or two circumstances. It is a far fairer and more proportionate way of dealing with the London Olympics association right.
	In his letter, the Minister was generous enough to say that the amendment was similar to the one I tabled, which was signed by Members of other parties. Not only has the Minister bowed to the logic of the argument, but he is happy with the drafting. What more could we have hoped for?

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said. I, too, felt very strongly that there was a serious error in the original drafting of the Bill. The amendment completely changes the environment in which Schedule 4 will be seen and in which people will have to operate. It reverses the entire situation. I am not a lawyer, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and it was very fortunate that we could use his skills and knowledge to do all the drafting for us. I am delighted, and I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I express my support for the amendment. My noble friend has been generous and helpful in giving his time to this matter, with informal meetings and discussions behind the scenes with his officials. He indicated that this amendment expresses what was in the Government's mind all along more clearly than what was there before. What was there before set alarm bells ringing in the advertising industry and elsewhere because any sort of reversal of the burden of proof that an infringement has been caused seemed to them to be a very serious change in the normal process one expects in legal proceedings. Therefore, this is a very welcome amendment and I fully support it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for all those comments. If I had been able to resist the robustness of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I was in even more trouble when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, applied his forensic and legal skill to the amendment. Of course, the whole House will recognise that, once the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, joined the ranks, change was in the air. I hope therefore that the amendment commends itself to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
	Page 48, line 13, leave out from "expressions," to end of line 16.
	Page 48, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (9).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 48, line 27, at end insert—
	"(10) Before laying a draft order in accordance with sub-paragraph (7)(b) the Secretary of State shall consult—
	(a) one or more persons who appear to him to have relevant responsibility for regulating the advertising industry (including enforcing standards of professional conduct),
	(b) one or more persons who appear to him to represent the interests of the advertising industry,
	(c) the London Organising Committee, and
	(d) such other persons as he thinks appropriate."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, continuing the spirit of agreement throughout the House, I move Amendment No. 26, which makes clear that, before varying the list of words and phrases listed in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill, the Secretary of State must consult the advertising industry, advertising regulators, LOCOG and anyone else who the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. Much like the earlier amendments that I tabled in relation to Clause 19, we have taken the opportunity to provide greater assurance on the face of the Bill to the advertising industry that it will be consulted on provisions that may affect its day-to-day business.
	In reality, we think it is unlikely that the list of words and phrases in Schedule 4 will change very much, but if there is a form of particularly damaging ambush marketing taking place in the years between now and 2012, the Secretary of State must retain the right to alter the list of words and phrases in Schedule 4 to provide greater clarity to both the courts and the public on what sort of activity is likely to create an unauthorised association. It is also important to realise that the Secretary of State can remove words from the list. If legitimate business is stifled as a result of the provisions in Schedule 4 to the Bill we will certainly make haste to change the schedule.
	The amendment provides that the Secretary of State must consult with those people whom any such change is most likely to effect; most notably the advertising industry, advertising regulators and LOCOG, as well as any others she thinks appropriate. The amendment responds to the points raised by noble Lords in many parts of the Committee during debate there, and has the effect of putting on a statutory footing the repeated commitments that have been made to both Houses during the Bill's parliamentary passage that we intend to consult fully and were mindful of the necessity of doing so. I am happy to bring forward these amendments. They will help to cement the very close working relationship that the Government, LOCOG and the advertising industry have already established over the practical application of this Bill which we all recognise is a joint endeavour to produce an Olympic Games of which the country and the wider world will be proud. I beg to move.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this is another very satisfactory addition to the Bill as the Minister has indicated. Again, this will be welcomed in the advertising industry, where there was concern about the lack of consultation in the Bill over changes in wording. The amendment is extremely welcome. In his reply, I hope that the Minister will use similar words to those he used earlier in terms of the length of consultation which may apply because exactly the same arguments apply as in that case.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have no anxiety about that at all. We are concerned to make consultation effective, the principle having been established. We always knew that we were involved in consultation and what noble Lords emphasised in Grand Committee is how that needed to be specified in more direct terms in the Bill. We will certainly consult.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Clement-Jones: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 50, line 1, leave out "as a necessary incident" and insert "in the course"

Lord Clement-Jones: In moving Amendment No. 27 and speaking to other amendments up to Amendment No. 30, I want to thank the Minister for his letter of 27 February. It is a recognition of the strength of the arguments that were made in Grand Committee. Regrettably, I still believe that the Minister has not yet grasped the exact concerns of the newspaper and broadcasting industry.
	The Government's wording of paragraph 8 in Schedule 4 and their position generally on this issue seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the distinction between editorial and advertising or a needless concern that the boundaries between the two can be wilfully manipulated. In his letter, the Minister said that "most" journalistic activities are unlikely to suggest an association. On page 2 of the letter he says that,
	"all journalistic practice is exempt from the association right created in Schedule 4".
	There is no disagreement there, but on page 1 of the letter he also refers to,
	"journalistic use that does not seek to advertise".
	That is a contradiction in terms.
	The Minister is clearly worrying about what he calls advertorials, but the key issue is what journalistic activities he is worried about. Journalistic or editorial usage does not advertise. If newspapers carry advertisements they want to be paid for them. The simple and central distinction is that, broadly, advertising is space paid for by a third party, the content of which is controlled by that third party. The practices that he described therefore either do not happen or are advertisements, not editorial.
	Concerns in the industry have been exacerbated by the fact that the Minister referred to,
	"ostensible news broadcasts which are really 'advertorials'",
	and not "genuine news broadcasts". Newspapers or broadcasters do not issue disguised advertisements in the guise of news bulletins. The Commercial Radio Companies Association and Sky television in particular have both emphasised to me that such things are already prevented by law from broadcasting on either commercial radio or television. For example, Ofcom requires a clear separation between editorial and advertising content.
	On the other hand, is the Minister in some way implying that news items based on, say, a press release from a major public company or company's annual report will not be considered bona fide editorial usage? If so, the industry has a further cause for concern. Quite apart from LOCOG looking over editors' shoulders about their choice of words, it seems that it will also be judging news selection. This concern is heightened by the Minister's reference to anyone who has even inadvertently it seems created an association,
	"for the purposes of a news story, to demonstrate the necessity of their actions".
	If that is not interference in editorial freedom, I do not know what is.
	Surely, the Government cannot be implying that non-news items are not journalistic. That would fly in the face of previous assurances given on Schedule 4. There are all manner of examples of standard non-news editorial items. Journalists may, for example, write reviews for restaurants, entertainment venues, books and so forth, but those are editorial not advertising. The difference between us seems to be that the Government take the view that something can be journalistic and yet still infringe, which is why they feel they need the necessary incident test. The view of the newspaper and broadcasting industry is that if something is editorial—not advertising—it should unequivocally fall within the provisions of paragraph 8 without the need for newspapers or broadcasters to justify either their selection of news and editorial material or the words used in them.
	With regard to paragraph 8(c), the letter gives a fair and accurate summary of the Panini case, including the central question the court would ask itself: why was the infringing representation used? That brings us straight back to our concern that a court might take a hard line and say, "To sell newspapers or make money for a commercial broadcaster". That explains why we want the other parts of paragraph 8 amended, because the industry does not want to have to rely on paragraph 8(c) in the face of the Panini case.
	In conclusion, the basic principle these amendments try to get across is the fact that editorial is editorial, and ipso facto legitimate. Any judgment by LOCOG of why particular news items were included, or the words used in them, would be utterly unacceptable. Advertisements, however, are advertisements, no matter what they look like or who they are written or spoken by. This amendment is not a recipe for loopholes. There are certain words set out in the Bill which, when used together, still raise the possibility of infringement of the London association right by journalists, or by editorial.
	Amendment No. 29 is important too, since the exception itself in paragraph 8(b) needs widening. Inclusion of those words about the Olympic Games means that the exemption is too narrow. I spoke at length on that in Grand Committee. I welcome the fact that the Minister wrote, but it is clear that his letter urgently requires further clarification, and I hope that the Minister will give us that today. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I did not speak in Committee on the similar amendments then moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I do not nowadays have an interest in the media to declare, but I was once a non-executive director of the Mirror Group, and I stress a strong bias in favour of freedom of speech and of the press, of wanting that freedom of the press to be restricted by legislation only in the most extreme of circumstances—restrictions imposed by the common law in relation to defamation, and so on. The press is of course also subject to the non-statutory rules of the Press Complaints Commission.
	I want to underline the key distinction emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, between the advertising content and the editorial content of a newspaper or broadcast. The advertising content is paid for and controlled by a third party, and that includes advertorials, which I can roughly describe as advertisements dressed up to look like editorial but paid for by a third party. Advertising content is paid for and controlled by a third party. Editorial content, on the other hand, is controlled by journalists and editors.
	When the Minister, in his letter to the noble Lord of 27 February, says reassuringly, as the noble Lord has already quoted, that:
	"all journalistic practice is exempt from the Association right created in Schedule 4",
	he seems to accept the distinction that both the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I have made between advertising content and editorial content. The question then arises: why the need for a "necessary incident" test? Under the Bill, unless it is amended, a journalist in the future might have to answer, with regard to a news broadcast about an Olympics event or an item in the press or on television detailing Olympic events to take place in the future, questions about whether he is suggesting a commercial association with the Olympic Games. Why should the news item have to be scrutinised by LOCOG to see whether any reference to the Olympics was a "necessary incident", and be regarded as legitimate only if it passes that test?
	Surely if the reference to the games is in the editorial content of a newspaper or broadcast, and not advertising content controlled by a third party, there should be no question but that the content falls within the safe harbour of paragraph 8, without the writer having to justify either the selection of news and editorial material or the words used in that material. I suspect that while the Minister, in the words I quoted from his letter, seemed to be accepting the distinction between advertising content and editorial content, he has not quite brought himself to do so. He will do so only if, for example, he gets rid of the phrase "necessary incident" in paragraph 8.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I did not put my name down to the amendments last week for the reasons I alluded to in the debate on Amendment No. 7, but I support them. Like the Minister, I am not a lawyer, but I read what he said in Committee on 15 February:
	"We are confident that the Bill as drafted will allow all legitimate journalistic practices".—[Official Report, 15/2/06; col. GC403.]
	That is a very firm statement. It remains the case that the media are not themselves so confident, and their anxiety has been exacerbated by the fact that the Minister and Mr Caborn in the other place have referred to,
	"ostensible news broadcasts which are really 'advertorials'",
	as the intended victim of the exception, and not "genuine news broadcasts".
	The media are genuinely baffled by the remark that I have quoted and do not know of any such programmes. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, Ofcom, for instance, requires a clear separation between editorial and advertising content and has detailed rules relating to advertorials. If news reports are intended to be excluded from the scope of the infringement, the media's view is that this remark, and the legislative approach which supports it, need further clarification as a matter of urgency.
	The media quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, included Sky, which is concerned that its legitimate reporting activities on Sky News are called into question by the present state of the Bill. I think back to the greatest sporting occasion in this country a year ago—the Ashes. There is no question at all that the drama which the Ashes produced was hugely enhanced by the quality of the broadcasting by Channel 4, which at one stage reached audiences of 9 million people for test cricket, which five years ago people would have said was impossible. There is much at stake if Sky believes itself to be at risk in that regard.
	I realise that at this late stage we may not get an amendment from the Government but it seems to me that at the very least considerable further ministerial clarification would be of assistance. If the Minister cannot convince us through such clarification, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will return to this matter at Third Reading, which will be our last opportunity to remove the present uncertainty in the media and create an equilibrium, which good work in your Lordships' House has secured in other matters of concern on the Bill which reached us from the other place.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I make one comment on the seriousness of the amendment and the schedule—if we get it wrong, we will live to regret it for ever. Let us not forget the number of occasions that we can all think of where the press have been turned off for one reason or another some considerable time before the relevant event happened. Once the media are turned off for whatever reason they choose to pick on to be turned off by, you will never get them back. We need them on side from now until 2015.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is certainly a serious issue and I will need to stick fairly closely to the brief to meet the requirements of the debate which has been presented with such precision by the four noble Lords who have contributed to it. I make it clear that we are not talking about television or radio regulated media. As we all recognise, broadcasts are regulated by a regulatory body. We are not in any way, shape or form anxious about broadcasts. We are worried about printed material but we are not worried about newspapers. As noble Lords have emphasised, it is clear who has paid for a certain section of a newspaper. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, emphasised that.
	We are concerned about flyers that look like news stories or newspapers but whose purpose is to link a product with the games and which purport to give news or information but are actually involved in a close association between the news which is supposedly being given and the product which is being advertised or sold. That is the area with which we are trying to deal. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others who expressed great concern about the general freedom of the press—certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, suggested, the press is a major organ of communication in our society—that we do not have the slightest intention of inhibiting press freedom. We would not want to do it because this Government are as concerned about press freedom as anyone else in the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, emphasised, we are concerned to ensure that the Olympic Games get the best possible reception from journalists. However, we have to safeguard certain aspects, phrases and terms associated with the Olympic movement and the Olympic Games from those who seek commercial advantage from them. We discussed this issue at great length in Committee and it was discussed in the other place. I want to put on record my confidence that this Bill will do nothing whatever to prevent legitimate editorial or journalistic practices in relation to the London games. I shall set out for noble Lords how the London Olympics association right relates to editorial and journalistic practices and the specific editorial and journalistic exemption that we have created.
	The London Olympics association right, created by Schedule 4, will only be infringed by someone who creates an association between a good or service and the London games—not any other form of comment; not any other form of discussion; not any other news story; but a deliberate attempt to associate a good or service with the games. An association, as defined in the Bill, is an unauthorised commercial, contractual, corporate or financial connection with the games. In considering whether any news report or magazine article would infringe the London Olympics association right, we therefore need to consider whether it would create such a commercial, contractual or other connection between a good or a service and the games. That is a pretty high threshold for any article to cross.
	Everything else is, of course, part of the cherished freedoms of comment of the press. If the London Olympics association right is infringed in those terms, we need to deal with that. A current affairs programme reflecting on London's success in winning the right to host the games; an evening news bulletin about the preparations for the games; or a newspaper article reporting on the opening ceremony or 100 metres final in 2012 would not suggest any form of commercial, contractual or corporate connection with the games. We would not expect them to; and they do not.
	However, so important is the right of the press to be able to report on all aspects of 2012 and the games, we have created a specific defence—a "backstop" if you will—further to protect all legitimate editorial and journalistic practices from infringing the London Olympics association right, which we need. We have had to be realistic and balanced about this issue. In setting out the exemption, we have had to ensure that we did not inadvertently create something that could be used by those who are intent on exploiting for commercial gain an unauthorised association with the games. Our advice is that the defence that we have created in the Bill strikes the right balance. It gives the rare journalist who in reporting on the games creates a commercial association between goods and services and the games, the opportunity to demonstrate why it was necessary for them to do that, but it will not allow others cynically to exploit the defence for a purpose for which it was not intended.
	Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 remove the important qualifying phrase "necessary incident" from that defence. In this short debate, my noble friend Lord Borrie particularly emphasised the issue of "necessary incident". We discussed that concept extensively in Committee as well. Our firm legal advice is that we have got this position right. The reason that the term "necessary incident" is contained in the exemption is to avoid creating a situation whereby someone could commercially exploit the games and rely on hiding behind a journalistic defence. The term "necessary incident" is therefore a means by which to prevent, for example, published "advertorials", the real motive of which is not to communicate information but to commercially exploit the games by promoting a product or a service.
	Noble Lords also expressed concerns in Committee about the effect that the Court of Appeal's decision in Panini would have on those defences. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to that case, and I commented on it in my letter to him. I hope that noble Lords will accept that, to the extent that the case is relevant to the Bill—and here we must be careful to remember that the decision actually concerned provisions of the Copyright Act and therefore does not lay down a definitive or binding interpretation of this Bill—it gives some useful guidance on the way that a court might approach one of the defences set out in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 28 ensures that the journalistic exemption extends to all publishing or broadcasting whether about the Olympics or not. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was concerned about the situation in which an article about east London referred to the Olympics by way of context. I reassure noble Lords that this sort of activity will of course be allowed, and the Bill as drafted already allows for that. Adding the words,
	"any editorial usage including without limitation",
	to paragraph 8 of schedule 4 is unnecessary, as it would duplicate what we have already provided for in the Bill.
	The Bill currently provides an exemption for the incidental inclusion in a literary, dramatic or artistic work of a representation likely to create an association with the London games. Amendment No. 29 extends that exemption to an advertisement of that literary or artistic work. If something is an incidental inclusion in an artistic work, it should be an incidental inclusion only in any accompanying advertising. Were that the case, the current drafting of the Bill would exempt such an advert, as it would be covered by the "incidental inclusion" defence. It would be a strange situation indeed if an incidental reference to the games in a piece of art, for example, became much more prominent when that artistic work was being advertised for sale. Indeed, the amendment would create a rather strange loophole whereby someone could unduly exaggerate a reference to the games when advertising an artistic work that only referenced the games incidentally.
	I understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised about the exemptions that should apply to the London Olympics association right. I recognise the sincerity and effectiveness with which those fears have been expressed. This is an important area, and I do not seek to minimise it in any way, shape or form. I listened carefully to what was said in Committee, which prompted my somewhat lengthy letter to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I have listened to powerful representations again today. I am clear, however, that the Bill does not have the undesirable effect that noble Lords are suggesting. I hope that I have given assurances that we have thought through this issue with the greatest of care. The issue of freedom of the press is of the greatest significance to this country, in all our work and to a free society.
	In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that those concerned with the Olympic Games might even have a narrower perspective of having the media very much on our side with regard to the games. Trying to present the games in the best possible light and hoping that others reflect that is a laudable objective, and I have not the slightest doubt that we will not succeed in every case. However, we must defend the London Olympics association right and have some element of restriction. We are doing that within the framework of advertisement. When dealing with editorial copy, I assure my noble friend Lord Borrie that we are talking not about comment in newspapers with the intent of effective communication of information but about printed material that purports to look like a newspaper and to convey news but is an advertisement or flyer that associates a good or service with the games. We must defend ourselves against that kind of content.
	On that basis, we have carefully defined the legal grounds on which infringement would take place. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that far from being cavalier and not mindful of the real concerns about press freedom, the Government have been concerned to defend certain words and contents from unfair, improper and illegal advertisement, while having a prime commitment to freedom of comment, freedom of the press and freedom of broadcasting. I hope that the noble Lord will think that he can safely withdraw his amendment.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I too listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. There is no doubt that since Grand Committee—indeed, since his letter—he has refined his arguments. He tells us that he is not talking about radio or television broadcast and that he is worried about printed material but not newspapers. He is actually concerned about flyers that purport to be linked to the games. As the whole of this debate shows, the provision is a very heavy sledgehammer to crack a nut of a flyer. Is that what the Government are really worried about—a flyer? We have the whole of the broadcasting industry and the whole of the newspaper industry excited by the draconian terms of this Bill but the Government are concerned with prohibiting a flyer. It seems an extraordinary situation.
	If that were the only area of concern I suppose I could stop there and say, "Why do the Government not rephrase the Bill so that they actually catch what they want to catch?". However, the Minister went on to say, "We have to safeguard certain terms owned by the Olympic movement from those seeking commercial advantage". He is confident that the Bill will do nothing to infringe press freedom but, "That means that we have to look at how the London association right relates to journalistic practices. It is trying to catch only an association between goods or services and the games". But then he went on to the really dangerous thing which sent shivers down my spine and said, "We have to consider whether a news item does this". That is an extraordinary statement. He is saying that if a journalistic item creates an association between goods or services and the games, then LOCOG is entitled to take action against that newspaper. That is an extraordinary statement. I think it means that all those who are concerned about these provisions are entirely justified. The Minister went on to say that these provisions "strike the right balance". However, merely what I have just said demonstrates the contrary and that this whole "necessary incident" phrase needs to be removed.
	With the best will in the world I no longer really can argue that the Government misunderstand the situation. I have to argue that the Government are intent on doing what the Minister has said, which frightens me even more. I suppose one could say that one seeks clarification in Grand Committee and then receives further clarification as time goes on. Usually that creates a sense of security—assurances are given and one can assure those who are affected by a provision that these clarifications, read into the record, will help if action is taken. However, I can give no such reassurance to those who have briefed me for this debate and who have demonstrated concerns to quite a number of noble Lords. I cannot give that assurance. In fact, I am more frightened about this provision than when I started.
	Obviously it is late and I cannot press an amendment now on Report. However, subject to consultation with colleagues on all Benches I may well bring this back on Third Reading. I very much hope that the Minister will consider the next steps and whether he can do other things to provide assurance within both the newspaper and the broadcasting industry.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord is not pressing the issue at this stage. I also appreciate the strength of feeling about this issue. We have a little time before Third Reading to reflect on this debate. I give him the assurance that, on such an important matter, we will reflect on the debate and look at matters before Third Reading.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy and particularly for that statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 50, line 21, at end insert—
	"The London Olympics association right shall have effect from 1st January 2007."

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we had a long debate on this and another amendment in Committee. The alternative amendment proposed to insert:
	"The London Olympics association right shall have effect from,"
	not, as in this amendment, "1 January 2007", but "31 December 2007"—quite a significant change. I am pleased that the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Borrie and Lord Pendry, have put their names to this amendment, which is where I started.
	I made it clear, both in our meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Coe, in the Leader's office, and in Committee, that this amendment struck a balance of reasonableness between the needs and, maybe, the demands of LOCOG and the Government and the needs and concerns of the industry. I still feel that if the Minister is able to accept the amendment, that balance will be achieved. It gives the advertising industry more space than it was expecting and needs—it gives the industry nine months: the best part of a year. It also gives LOCOG, more than any other organiser of an Olympic Games, five whole years of comprehensive protection to sell to its would-be sponsors. I beg to move.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for retabling this amendment. The Minister will see, as the noble Lord said, that others—and particularly those on these Benches—have, in the spirit of compromise, agreed to put our weight behind it. That represents a considerable movement. It represents a desire to recognise to whatever degree is possible the concerns of LOCOG that there may be some commercial detriment if the timetable was shifted as the original amendment suggested.
	I am also grateful to the Minister for providing a copy of the letter that he sent to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, following the Committee, clarifying the Qantas/Ansett ambush marketing example. That was extremely useful, particularly when the Minister said that some of what he said about that case may have been based on inaccurate information. I felt that that was a rabbit drawn out of a hat, perhaps somewhat hastily. The letter goes on to talk a lot about the case, but still fails to make a good argument about why the issue was raised in the first place in relation to a case concerning duration. It is not unfair to say that the letter only demonstrates the irrelevant nature of the Qantas/Ansett example. Qantas campaign took place after Sydney had introduced its equivalent Olympic legislation.
	On the other hand, the London Olympics association right under this Bill would catch any such mischief, if, for example, Virgin were to attempt a similar campaign in relation to British Airways, if the latter was an official sponsor of the London games and Virgin was not. Indeed, Ansett's complaint against Qantas was eventually settled out of court after the former brought a civil case against the latter under existing Australian legislation governing trade practices.
	I do not believe that the Sydney association right was available to it. Even if that were not the case, it seems beyond belief that an ambush marketeer would invest time and money in a campaign that attempted to create some kind of association a full five and a half or six years before the opening ceremony of the London games in 2012, knowing that it would have to cease on 1 January 2007 or risk being pursued by LOCOG for breach of the London association right.
	At the minimum, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, the industry is concerned that Schedule 4 will come into place without the draft interpretive guidance. We had quite a debate about some of the contents of the guidance. Clearly it is in early draft stage and there is still considerable work to be done. A number of grey areas need to be clarified and, indeed, the Minister had the grace to accept that there was room for improvement in the content of the draft guidance notes. All anticipate that it will take months rather than weeks for LOCOG to finish off what London 2012 has started in terms of drafting the guidance notes.
	As we have seen during Grand Committee and Report, the guidance notes are important. People will rely on them and it is important that they are done properly. It will be extremely unfair to commerce if the guidance notes are not available and yet the London association right bites. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would provide the advertising industry and the relevant pre-vetting bodies with an extra eight months or so in which to prepare carefully for the onset of the association right. That is an important point that would assist in its regulation.
	The amendment would still provide LOCOG with a total of six years over which it could seek to enforce the association right. That is considerably longer than the protections offered to official sponsors at any previous games or, indeed, at Turin, Beijing or Vancouver. As was mentioned in Grand Committee, it is notable that the organisers of the three sets of games that will precede the London games are having little difficulty in attracting sponsorship, despite having a shorter period of association right. I can see no reason why the organisers of London 2012, which has been impressively organised so far, should not be able to imitate or surpass the success of the organising committees for those games once they have evolved into LOCOG post-Royal Assent.
	I believe that the Government should cede to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It would be greatly welcomed; it would provide much greater certainty; and it would be much fairer to those who will be affected by the London association right.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment and I support it. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, stated the main purpose of postponing the operation of the association right to 1 January, and those arguments were elaborated upon by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
	It seems to me that if, as the Bill stands, the association right—and the exclusivity that goes with it—comes into operation on Royal Assent, it will have a total of six and a half years in which to operate before the start of the London Olympic Games, and that is unprecedented. It was not so at Sydney and it was not so at any previous Olympic Games. It is an example of the exaggerated way in which the Government—certainly at the beginning of our discussions on this legislation and, more importantly, in the discussions that took place between the Minister and others—have felt that they have had to dot every "i" and cross every "t" and do not only what the IOC has asked of them but something in addition to prove that we are worthy of this splendid opportunity of the London games.
	In the fullness of time and in view of the debates that we have had at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and again today, I ask the Minister to think about this carefully. He knows that there is no precision about what will infringe the association rights and what will not. He and his officials have been most helpful in showing some of us the drafts of guidance notes. I recall, when looking at them, that they were extremely extensive. Almost inevitably, they raised nearly as many questions as they answered because there is such a variety of ways in which the association rights could be breached.
	At the very least, I ask the Minister to think about this, between now and eight months' time—1 January 2007—when we shall probably see those guidance notes in their final form and, more importantly, so will the advertising industry and they will then know what they can and cannot do. If the breach can, in theory, be operative from a date in June or July when the Bill receives Royal Assent, you are asking a large number of professional, advertising industry people to try to judge without that guidance whether they can do this or cannot do that. I do not think that is right. The Minister has recognised that there are some grey areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put it a moment ago. It would be fairly simple and not a major concession for the Government to agree to this amendment.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I want to add my voice to those who have commended the Minister on his flexibility as regards the government amendments that he has moved. He has listened to the debates in Committee and acted on them. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Coe, is not in his place—he was earlier—because I would have now asked the Minister to go the extra mile—I am glad some noble Lords appreciated that comment. However, I do not intend to detain the House by picking over what has already been said on the subject. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has said today and at previous stages that this is the time for compromise. Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Benches support this compromise amendment in that spirit. It is now the turn of the Government to demonstrate their willingness on this issue and to make a compromise. I believe it is incumbent on them to do so.
	A postponement of the commencement date for Schedule 4 solves, in my view, a number of problems, not least the fact that London's 2012 guidance notes for advertisers and others remain in first draft form only. In other words, the final version of the interpretive guidance will not be available to those whom the London Olympics association right will affect until sometime after that right has reached the statute book. Clearly, that is not ideal or fair from any viewpoint or perspective.
	Amendment No. 31, if adopted, would provide LOCOG, once it has taken over the responsibility for this particular task from London 2012 on Royal Assent, with extra time to complete the necessary stages of drafting that clearly still need to be done before producing a final version of the guidance notes. As others have said, there will then be a job to communicate their existence and content and to explain the implications of the London Olympics association right to those on whom it may impact.
	If it is the intention of my noble friend Lord Davies to reject this compromise amendment on behalf of the Government, I would challenge him to explain in categorical terms how he intends that LOCOG will get over this particular—dare I say?—hurdle. In eager anticipation of the Minister's response, I commend the amendment to the House.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is not only suggesting that I compete with the noble Lord, Lord Coe, over a mile, but it now seems to be a mile over hurdles. That would guarantee that I had not taken the first bend when the noble Lord, Lord Coe, had finished the race.
	I will seek to give my noble friend an answer, because I hear what he says about this being a compromise amendment. I am not quite able to regard it as such, for reasons I will identify in a moment. He has raised important issues, however, and I will respond particularly to his challenge to explain how we intend to go on if, as is our intention, we proceed with these restrictions after Royal Assent.
	We debated this issue at some length in Committee, where three main areas of concern were expressed. They have been reiterated this evening with the emphasis, inevitably with this amendment, being placed on the third. First was the effect that the London Olympic association right might have on small business. Genuine concerns have been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill that many small businesses could unwittingly infringe the London Olympic association right, and would then feel the full force of a civil action from LOCOG as a result. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was particularly concerned about this in Committee.
	Secondly, concern was expressed at the possibility that companies will have invested in advertising campaigns that may end up infringing the London Olympic association right before they were aware of the provisions in Schedule 4. As was emphasised in Committee, this is particularly true of broadcast campaigns that often have a long production time. Thirdly, noble Lords, in Committee and on this amendment today, have questioned why this new provision needs to be commenced so far out from 2012.
	I have listened carefully to the debate this evening, as I did in Committee. The House will recognise that, through my officials, we have been in regular contact with the advertising industry, which also raised its concerns about the commencement of Schedule 4. To do justice to this debate, I will warn—not apologise—that this will be a lengthy reply to an amendment of cardinal importance.
	I take it for granted that we are all agreed that the unauthorised commercial exploitation of the games is wrong. The London Olympic association right is designed to prevent a company associating itself with the games unless it has paid to do so. This principle must hold this year, just as it will in the weeks leading up to the opening ceremony. We cannot enforce it until the legislation is in place, but the principle obtains, enjoined on us by the International Olympic Committee in some crucial respects. We intend to observe that principle.
	LOCOG has already said that it will take a reasonable and proportionate approach in exercising the rights given to it by virtue of Schedule 4, particularly in the few months after Royal Assent. I take on board the points made by several noble Lords in this debate—in very strong terms by my noble friend Lord Pendry, with his vast experience of these issues—but we do not want people to fall foul of these situations in circumstances into which they have inadvertently blundered, either through ignorance or because they already had campaigns running well before the guidance was available, or the Act had received Royal Assent.
	LOCOG has already taken a number of important steps to ensure that the industry is fully informed about the London Olympic association right and knows how to interpret it. LOCOG has produced a set of guidelines, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred, on how to interpret the provisions of Schedule 4. The guidance has been shared with the Advertising Association, the radio and broadcast clearing houses and others that represent advertising interests. The guidance has been drafted in close co-operation with the advertising industry to ensure it is as comprehensive and clear as possible.
	LOCOG will be passing a further draft of these guidance notes to the advertising industry by the end of the week and will certainly have a final version posted on its website by Royal Assent. So advertisers will know the definitive guidance by Royal Assent.
	Over the coming months LOCOG will also be undertaking a significant programme of education. It is producing no fewer than 11 sector-specific guides, outlining what the London Olympic association right means for the people it is likely to affect most. These sector guides will be tailored to specific interests, ranging from the advice that LOCOG will give its own sponsors and suppliers, right through to the advice that it will give to non-commercial organisations and national sporting governing bodies. It will of course include specific guides for the advertising industry and the media.
	LOCOG will also be working through the 2012 Nations and Regions Group—a group that LOCOG established to ensure that the whole country is engaged with and informed about the games. My noble friend Lord Pendry expressed regret that the noble Lord, Lord Coe, was not in his place at the later stage in the evening, although I am sure that we are all grateful for the keen interest he took earlier in the evening on other areas of controversy in the Bill. But I have no doubt that, had he been here, he would have been able to attest to the virtues that I have sought to express in relation to how LOCOG is going about its very responsible job of ensuring that the advertising industry knows just where it stands.
	The regional development agencies are key partners in the Nations and Regions Group and we will be looking to them to help to communicate with their regions' businesses about the implications of the Bill. I am also pleased to put on the record today that LOCOG has committed to hosting a seminar with representatives from small businesses, including the Small Business Service and other trade associations, to ensure that they are fully informed about what the London Olympic association right means for their members.
	I understand the concerns expressed this evening. LOCOG has committed to taking a lenient approach in the first few months of this right being in place, and there is a clear and comprehensive process for engaging with small and medium-sized enterprises—a matter emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in introducing the amendment. I hope that that will give noble Lords some considerable comfort on this particular issue.
	I want to reiterate the value of ambush marketing, and why the IOC has asked us to take steps to prevent this sort of activity in relation to the 2012 games. Ambush marketing in relation to major international sporting events is becoming more and more prevalent. Sporting events do not come any bigger than the Olympics. The value of ambushing the games and the threat of commercial exploitation do not get any greater than for these games in 2012. That is why, with our experience, we need to prevent from the outset deliberate campaigns by big multinational companies that seek commercially to exploit the games.
	I do not think it would be wise to create a situation where companies are free to exploit the games from now until the beginning of next year, which would be the burden of this amendment if it were passed. It is not the inadvertent breach by a local corner shop or a bed and breakfast where the proprietor would not be expected to be well informed on these issues that the immediate commencement of Schedule 4 is aiming at. We are aiming at a deliberate and persistent ambush marketing campaign that could damage LOCOG's ability to sign up their sponsors and raise the money that it needs to finance the games.
	LOCOG will be signing up its first sponsors in the autumn of this year. It needs to do that with the legislation in place to provide certainty to its potential sponsors that their rights will be entirely protected. LOCOG also needs to go to its sponsors in a marketplace that has not already been affected by people who have sought to exploit the games; it must be able to offer its sponsors the opportunity to activate their sponsorship rights immediately.
	It is worth remembering just how much LOCOG must raise. On an operating budget of £2 billion, LOCOG must raise a third from local sponsorship revenues. That is a far larger sum than any previous Olympic organising committee has had to raise and, effectively, means doubling the sports sponsorship market in the United Kingdom. That is a major task for and challenge to LOCOG. We are all rightly optimistic about it; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, and his colleagues exude confidence about it. We all know what an enormous success the London games will be. But they need every support that they can get. They certainly need the legislative support that guarantees their position when they approach their sponsors.
	Although LOCOG can offer sponsors one of the most recognised and valued brands in the world, sponsors of the Olympics get only a limited time at the games. What is more, there is no advertising in the arenas in which the games are played. When you are watching the competition on television, there will be no sponsors' advertisements inside the arena. Given that the BBC is the host broadcaster here in the United Kingdom, sponsors will have no opportunity to advertise their association with the games during commercial breaks in the BBC's television coverage.
	That is why the concept of associating with the games is so important and why we must carefully protect the rights of those companies that will pay for that privilege. It is not just about protecting sponsors' rights, important though that is. If LOCOG does not raise the sponsorship revenues that it needs to stage the games, the shortfall will be met from the public purse. I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said on that issue and throughout the debate on the various measures designed to protect the Olympic brand. I am grateful for the contributions that have been made today. However, we must think very carefully indeed when we are considering such substantial sums, which are attainable through sponsorship but which, should they not be attained through any failure on our part, would fall as a duty on the public purse.
	I am grateful for all the work that has been done today to improve the Bill. As noble Lords will recognise, I have tabled amendments out of respect for the strength, cogency and accuracy of some arguments made in Committee. However, I do not regard the amendment as a compromise; I regard it as a compromising amendment. It compromises the ability of LOCOG to achieve its necessary financial results from sponsorship. That is why it is very important that the London Olympic association right comes into force on the day of Royal Assent. I understand that concerns have been expressed, particularly on behalf of small businesses which have limited resources to make themselves aware of all the issues involved, but I hope that I have succeeded in allaying some of the concerns about what might be perceived as some ignorance about the implications of the right.
	LOCOG is bent on informing all those concerned, and we are in the closest consultation with the advertising industry. But we need to protect this right, which is central to the success of the games. We owe it to LOCOG, to the work that it is doing now, and to the challenge that lies before it. We dare not add extra burdens. This is not only about the interests of all of us, including the vast majority of the public who are committed to the games being a success; we have a responsibility to the public purse, and if we do not deliver down one channel, we will be obliged to deliver down another. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment on the basis of my arguments.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am disappointed, although I am not surprised. I should like to put firmly on record my appreciation of the seriousness and thoroughness with which the Minister has addressed my amendment and the whole issue. The first stage of that was his amendment earlier today, which reversed the assumption of guilt process. The second stage was his amendments, which have opened up the Bill to enforce more consultation on the issue with whichever groups and people are considered the right ones in the industry.
	I am also much less concerned than I was, having heard about the regulations. I sincerely hope that the final copy of those regulations will be published and in the hands of the industry and those who need them before Royal Assent. I see the Minister nodding, for which I thank him. I am also encouraged by the amount of education, by the seminars and the guidance, and generally by the fact that LOCOG has clearly tackled this serious and large communication problem. I raised these subjects in Committee, as I was very concerned about the amount of communication that LOCOG needed throughout the sporting world and the advertising industry if there was not to be injustice at some stage as a result of this Bill.
	I still feel that it would have been more satisfactory if there had been a little more time. I was expecting Royal Assent in April but, if that is not until June or July, we are talking of a matter of only two or three months. However, I do not want to take any particular chances, and I believe that the Minister, the Government and LOCOG really believe that this date is critical to their potential achievement, particularly in their fundraising. I accept what the Minister says about the value of ambush marketing to the ambushers and the temptations offered by those businesses, both large and small.
	We can control only those within our own country. The real story about Qantas was that it targeted foreign Olympic associations and athletes. As far as I can see, that is an area that we cannot control, which is very relevant to the ambush-marketing problem. I thank noble Lords who have supported this amendment very much more eruditely than I have placed the arguments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	House adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock.